5eO 


THE  ^y^  ^^  . 

CANON  ^ 


eitK   a^nTi   JLe^   ^ei^tamentfii 


ASCERTAINED  J 


THE  BIBLE  COMPLETE 


"WITHOUT   THE 


AFOCBTFHA  8c  UWrWRITTBN  TRADITIONS. 


BY   4JICHIBALD    ALEXANDER, 

Professor  of  Didactic   and  Polemic  Theology,  in  the  Theological 
Seminary,  at  Pnnceton,  J\'.  J. 


And  that  from  a  cliild  thou  hast  known  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  ot 
God,  and  is  profitable.  —Paul. 


PRIjYCETOJV  PRESS: 
Printed  and  Published  by  D.  A.  Borrenstein, 
FOR   G.  AND    C.    CARVILL,    NEW  YORK. 

i82ei 


.  ->r  A  ^^  -^^^^  XN.^'^^     ^X  *^V^ 


\ 


District  of  J\''e-d>  Jersey,  to  -wit  .• 
*********    JHE  IT  REMEMBERED,   That  on  the  Nine- 
*Sc  t^'*       teenth  day  of  September,  in   the  Fifty -first  year  of 
*  .«.       the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America, 

*********  Anno  Domini  1826,  D.  A.  Bokrenstein,  of  the 
said  District,  hath  deposited  in  this  Office  the  title  of  a  book,  the 
I'ight  whereof  he  claims  as  proprietor,  in  the  words  following,  to 
wit  : 

The  Canon  of  the  Old  and  JVev  Testaments  ascertained ;  or  the 
.Bible  complete  xvithout  the  Apocrypha  and  TJmuritten  Traditions. 
By  AncHiBALn  ALF.xAxnF.n,  Pi-ofessor  of  Didactic  and  Polemic 
'I  heology,  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  at  Princeton,  New  Jersey. 
And  that  from  a  child  thou  hast  knoivn  the  Holy  Scriptures,  ivhicJi 
are  able  to  make  thee  7vise  imto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus.  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God  and  is 
profitable . — Paul. 

In  conformity  to  an  act  of  the  Congi  ess  of  the  United  States, 
entitled,  "An  act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning  by  securing  die 
copies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books  to  the  authors  and  proprietors 
of  such  copies  during  the  times  therein  mentioned."  And  also  to 
the  act  entitled,  "  An  act  supplementary  to  an  act  entitled,  An  act 
for  the  encouragement  of  learning  by  securing  the  copies  of  Maps, 
Charts  and  Books  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies  du- 
ring the  times  therein  mentioned,  and  extending  the  benefits  there- 
of to  the  arts  of  designing,  etching,  and  engraving  historical  prints. 

Wm.     PENNINGTON, 

Clerk  of  the  District  ofJK'eiu  Jersey. 


PREFACK. 


OxE  motive  which  induced  the  author  to  undertake 
tlie  following  compilation,  was  the  desire  of  furnish- 
ing a  supplement  to  the  little  volume  which  he  recent- 
ly published,  on  the  Evidences  of  the  Christian 
Religion  ;  for  the  argument  for  the  truth  of  Divine 
Revelation  cannot  be  considered  complete,  without 
the  testimonies,  by  which  the  Canonical  authority  of 
the  several  books  of  Scripture  is  established.  But  he 
Avas  also  influenced  by  the  consideration,  that  a  con- 
venient and  compendious  work  on  this  subject,  is  a 
desideratum^  in  our  English  Theological  Literature. 
The  works  which  we  possess  on  the  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture, are  either  too  learned  or  too  voluminous,  for  the 
use  of  common  readers.  Besides,  the  whole  subject 
has  been  seldom  treated  by  the  same  author  ;  for  while 
one  vindicates  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  alone, 
another  confines  himself  to  the  settling  of  the  Canon 
of  the  New  Testament. 

The  object  of  the  writer  of  this  work  is  to  exhibit  a 
compendious  view  of  the  whole  subject,  and  in  such  a 
form  as  will  be  level  to  the  capacities  of  all  descrip- 
tions of  readers.  He  has  aimed  at  bringing  forward 
the  result  of  the  researches  of  learned  men,  who  have 


IV. 

treated  this  subject,  in  such  a  manner,  that  the  sub- 
stance of  their  works  might  be  easily  accessible  to  that 
numerous  class  of  readers,  who  are  unskilled  in  the 
learned  languages.  It  was,  moreover,  his  opinion, 
that  such  a  volume  as  this,  would  not  be  unacceptable 
to  theological  students,  and  to  clergymen,  who  have 
it  not  in  their  power  to  procure  more  costly  works; 

As  a  considerable  portion  of  the  materials  used  in 
composing  this  treatise  have  been  derived  from  others, 
the  author  feels  it  to  be  incumbent  on  him,  to  give  due 
credit  to  those  learned  authors  from  whom  he  has  re- 
ceived aid  ;  which  can  be  more  conveniently  done,  at 
once,  in  this  place,  than  by  perpetual  references,  in 
the  body  of  the  work. 

In  the  First  Part,  which  relates  to  the  Canon  of  the 
Old  Testament,  assistance  has  been  derived  from 
Tlie  Panstratia  of  Chamier,  The  Isagoge  of  Buddeus^ 
The  Thesaurus  Philologicus  of  Hottinger,  Prideaux's 
Connexion^  Wilson  on  the  Apocrypha  ;  and  above  all, 
from  Bishop  Cosin's  Scholastick  History  of  the  Canon 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

In  the  Second  Part,  on  the  Canon  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, the  testimonies  adduced,  have  been  principal- 
ly selected  from  the  ample  collections  of  the  impartial 
and  indefatigable  Lardner  ;  but  in  all  that  relates  to 
the  Apocryphal  books  of  the  New  Testament,  little 
else  has  been  done,  than  to  abridge  and  arrange  the 


information  contained  in  the  valuable  work  of  the 
learned  Jeremiah  Jones,  on  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Oral  Law  of  the  Jews,  the 
author  lias  freely  availed  himself  of  the  labours  of 
that  great  polemic,  Hohnsrek,  in  his  learned  work, 
Contra  Jtidoeos.  On  that  of  Unwritten  Tradi- 
tions, he  found  no  uriter  more  satisfactory,  than 
Chemnitius,  in  his  Exameu  Con.  Trid.  By  the  in- 
troduction of  a  discussion  on  these  points,  into  a  trea- 
tise on  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  he  acknowledges  that 
he  has  departed  from  the  usual  method  of  treating  the 
subject  ;  but  he  is  persuaded,  that  a  little  considera- 
tion will  convince  every  candid  reader,  that  the  suffi- 
ciency and  perfection  of  the  Scriptures,  cannot  be  de- 
monstrated, unless  it  be  shown,  that  no  part  of  divine 
revelation  was  left  to  be  handcvl  down  bv  unwritten 
tradition.  For  if,  as  many  believe,  an  important  part 
of  the  doctrines  and  institutions  of  Christianity  has 
been  transmitted  to  us,  only  through  this  channel,  it 
will  answer  very  little  purpose  to  prove,  that  our  Bi- 
bles comprehend  all  the  books  ever  written  by  inspi- 
ration for  the  use  of  the  Catholic  Church  ;  since,  on 
this  hypothesis,  an  essential  part  of  divine  revelation 
is  not  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  was,  indeed, 
never  committed  to  writing.  But  the  object  in  this 
work  is  to  show,  that  the  Bible  is  complete^  containing, 
A  2 


VI. 


all  things  necessary  to  guide  the  faith  and  practice  of 
every  sincere  Christian  ;  and  that  the  church  is  in  pos- 
session of  no  other  revelation,  but  what  is  recorded  in 
these  Sacred  Books. 


COJ^TE^TTS. 


PART     I. 

SECTION.  ^  PIOE. 

lNTRODfijm(<#"  The  importance  of  ascertaining  the 
true  Canon  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  .         .  0 

I.  Early  use  and  import  of  ilie  word  Canon  .  20 

II.  Constitution  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  by 

Ezra. — Tlie  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  as  it 
now  exists,  sanction'^d  by  Ciiristand  ins  Apostles — 
Catalogues  of  the  Books  by  some  of  the  early  fa- 
thers— Agreement  of  Jews  and  Christians  on  this 
subject.         ........     23 

III.  Apocryphal  books — Their  origin — In'portance  of  dis- 

tingnishinir  between  Canonical  and  Apocryphal 
books — Six  books  o\  thi,-  class  pronounced  Canoni- 
cal by  the  Councd  of  Trent — Not  in  the  Hebrew, 
nor  received  by  iht  .Tews,  ancient  or  modem.  39 

IV.  Testimonies  of  tiie  Christian  fiithers,  and  of  other 

learnt.'d  men  dmvn  to  'he  time  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  respectmg  the  Apocrv;)ha.         .  •         .51 

V.  Internal  evidence  that  these  books  are  not  Canoni- 
cal— The  writers  not  prophets,  and  do  not  claim  to 
be  inspired.  ,,,....     74 

VI.  No  Canonical  book  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  lost.  95 
VII.  The  Oral  Law  of  the  Jews  without  foundation.      .     106 

PART  II. 

I.  Method  of  settling  the  C.uion  of  the  New  Te.stament.  129 
II.  Catalogues  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament — 
Canonical  books  only  cited  as  authority  by  the  Fa- 
thers, and  read  in  the  churches  as  Scripture.  144 
HI.  Order  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament — Time  of 
the   Gosp'^ls   being  written — Notice   of  the  Evan- 
gelists.         .           .          .....           1G4 

IV.  Testimonies  to  Matthew's  Gospel— Time  of  publica- 
tion --Language  in  which  it  was  origmally  com- 
posed  17G 

V.  Gospel  of  Mark — On  what  occasion  published— As- 
cribed to  the  dictation  of  Peter  by  all  the  Fathers.    IGj 


Vlll. 

SECT. 

VI.  Gospel  of  Luke — Testimonies  of  the  Fathers  respec- 
ting it. 194. 

VII.  The  objections  of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  to  the  CanonicaJ 

authority  of  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  con- 
sidered, and  answered.  ....         200 

VIII.  The  Gospel  of  John— -Life  of  the  Evangelist — Occa- 

sion and  time  of  his  writing — Canonical  authority 
indisputable.  .  .....  214 

IX.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles — Luke  the  author — Ca- 
nonical authority  undisputed  by  the  Fathers;  Re- 
jected only  by  heretics.  ....  223 

X.  Testimonies  to  the  Canonical  authority  of  the  four- 
teen Epistles  of  Paul 228 

XI.   Canonical  authority  of  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles.       253 
XII.   Canonical  authority  of  the  Book  of  Revelation.     .      263 

XIII.  No  Canonical  book  of  the  New  Testament  has  been 

lost 287 

XIV.  Rules  for  determining  what  books  are  Apocryphal ; 

some  account  of  the  Apocryphal  books  which  have 
been  lost :  All  of  them  condemned  by  the  forego- 
ing rules;   Reason  of  the  abounding  of  such  books.   302 

XV.  Apocryphal  books  which  are  still  extant ;    Lptter  of 

AbgarusKing  of  Edessa  to  Jesus,  and  his  answer; 
Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  ;  Letters  of  Paul  to  Sen- 
eca ;  Protevangelion  of  James  ;  The  Gospel  of 
our  Saviour's  infancy;  The  Acts  of  Pilate  ;  The 
Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla.         ....         315 

XVI.  No  part  of  the  Christian  Revelation  handed  down  by 

unwritten  tradition 339 

Notes, 392 


PART     K. 


IN-TRODUOTIOSr: 


THE   I.VirORTAXCE    OF    ASCERTAINING    THE    TttUfi 
CANON  OF   HOLY    SCUIFl  UUE. 

The  Bible  includes  a  large  number  of  separate 
books,  put)lisiied  in  different  ages,  during  a  space 
of  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years.  Each  of 
tliesf-  books,  vvlien  fiist  publi'^hed,  formed  a  vol- 
ume ;  or  at  least,  the  writings  of  each  aiithor, 
were,  in  the  beginning,  distinct:  and  if  they  had 
Continued  in  that  separate  form,  and  had  been 
transmitted  to  us,  in  many  volumes  instead  of 
one,  their  authority  would  not,  on  this  account, 
have  been  less,  nor  their  usefulness  diminished. 
Their  collection  into  one  volume,  is  merely  a 
matter  of  convenience;  and  if  any  persons  choose, 
now,  to  publish  these  books  in  a  separate  form, 
they  cannot  with  jir-jptiety  be  charged  with  cast- 
ing any  indignity  on  the  word  of  God. 

Hence  it  appears,  that  besides  general  argu- 
ments to  demonstrate  that  the  Bible  contains  a 
divine  revelation,  there  is  need  of  special  proofs 
to  evince,  that  each  of  the  books  now  included 
in  that  sacred  volume,  has  a  right  to  the  |)lace 
which  it  occupies  ;  or  does  in  reality  contain  a 
part  of  that  revelation  ">  hich  God  has  given. 
9 


10 

If,   therefore,  it  could   be  shown  (which  how- 
ever   it    never    can)    that  some    particular    book, 
now    included    in   the  Bible,    was   not   authentic, 
the   conclusion   thence  derived    would   only  affect 
that   single  production  ;  unless  it  were  recognized 
as    divine    by    the   writers     of  the   other   books. 
The  credit  of  the   whole    volume   would   not  be 
destroyed,   even   if  it  could   be  proved,   that   one 
half  the  books  of  which  it  consists  were  spurious. 
Infidels   have   much  more  to  effect   in  overthrow- 
ing the  Bible,     than  they  commonly  suppose.      It 
is  incumbent  on    them    to  demonstrate,  not  only 
that  this,  or   that  book,    is   false,   but   that  every 
one  of  these  productions   is   destitute  of  evidence 
that   it  has   been   derived  from  the  inspiration  of 
God. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  manifest,  that  the  advo- 
cate of  divine  revelation  is  bound  to  defend  the 
claims  of  every  separate  portion  of  this  volume; 
or  to  reject  from  it  that  part,  which  has  no  evi- 
dence of  a  divine  origin.  It  is  necessary,  that 
he  should  be  able  to  render  a  good  reason  why  he 
admits  any  particular  book,  to  form  a  part  of  th.e 
inspired  volume. 

It  is  true,  that  the  antiquity  of  this  collection 
clninis  for  it  a  high  degree  of  respect :  the  trans- 
mission of  this  volume  to  us,  tlirough  so  many  cen- 
turies, as  Holy  Scimptuke,  should  teach  us  to 
be  cautious  how  we  question  what  is  so  vener- 
able for  its  antiquity.      But  this  only  furnishes 


11 

one  presuni])live  ar^umont  in  fnvonr  of  each  book. 
It  by  no  means  renders  all  fnrtber  investigation 
unnecessary  ;  mucb  less  impious. 

It  is  easy  to  conceive,  tbat    books  not  written 
by  the   inspiration  of  God,  mis;bt,  by  some  casu- 
alty, or  mistake,  find  a  |)lacein  the  sacred  volume. 
In  fact,   we  have   a  strikin}*;  example  of  this  very 
thing,    in    the    Greek,    and    Latin    Bibles,   wbicb 
are  now   in   use,  and   held    to    be   sacred,    by    a 
large    majority   of    those   who    are    denominated 
Christians.       These    Bibles,     besides    the    books 
which    have    evidence    of    being    truly    inspired, 
contain   a  number  of   other   books,   the  claim   of 
which  to  inspiration,  cannot  be  sustained  by  solid 
and  satisfactory  reasons.     This   inquiry  therefore, 
is  far    from  being  one  of  mere   curiosity  :   it  is,  in 
the  highest  degree  practical,    and   concerns    the 
conscience   of  every  man,   capable  of  making  the 
investigation.      We  agree,  in  tlie  general,  that  the 
Bible  is  the   Word   of  God,   and  an    authoritative 
rule  ;   but  the  momentous   question    immediately 
presents  itself,    what  belongs   to  the    Bible  ?     Of 
what  books  does  this  sacred  volume  consist  ?   And 
it  will  not  answer,    to  resoh  e  to  take  it  as  it  has 
come  down  to  us,  without  further  inquiry  ;  for  the 
Bible  has  come    down    in   us,  in   several  different 
forms.      The  Vulgate  Latin  Bible, which  only  was 
in  use,  for  hundreds  of  years  before  the  era  of  the 
reformation,  and  also  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old 
Testament,  contain  many  books,  not  in  the  copies 


12 

of^the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  Now  to  determii^e 
which  of  these  contains  the  whole  inspired  books 
given  to  the  Jews  before  the  advent  ofChrist,and  no 
more,  requires  research,  and  accurate  examination. 
The  inquir3-,therefore,is  not  optional,  but  forces  it- 
self upon  every  conscientious  man:  for  as  no  one  is 
at  liberty  to  reject  from  the  sacred  volume, one  sen- 
tence, much  less  a  whole  book  of  the  revelation  of 
God  ;  so,  no  one  has  a  right  to  add  any  thing  to  the 
word  of  God ;  and  of  consequence,  no  one  may 
receive  as  divine,  what  others  have  without  au- 
thority added  to  the  Holt  Scriptures.  Every 
man,  therefore,  according  to  his  opportunity  and 
capacity,  is  under  a  moral  obligation  to  use  his 
best  endeavours  to  ascertain  what  books  do,  really, 
and  of  right,  belong  to  the  Bible.  An  error  here, 
on  either  side,  is  dangerous  :  for  on  the  one  hand, 
if  we  reject  a  part  of  divine  revelation,  we  dishon- 
our God, and  deprive  ourselves  of  the  benefit  which 
tnight  be  derived  from  that  portion  of  divine  truth; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  we  are  guilty  of  an  equal 
offence,  and  may  suffer  an  equal  injury,  by  adding 
spurious  productions  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  for 
thus  we  adulterate  and  poison  the  fountain  of  life  ; 
and  subject  our  consciences  to  the  authority  of 
mere  men. 

I  think,  therefore,  that  the  importance  and  ne- 
cessity of  this  inquiry  must  be  evident  to  every 
person  of  serious  reflexion.  But  to  some  it  may 
appear;  that  this  matter  has  been  long  ago  settled. 


13 

on  tlic  firmest  principles  ;  and   that    it  can  answer 
no  2;oo(l  purpose  to  asjitatc  questions,    wiiicli  liave 
a  lendency  to  produce   doubts   and   misgivings    in 
the   minds  of  common    Christians,    ralhcr    than'  a 
confirmation    of  their   faith.      In   reply  to  the  first 
part  of  this  objection,  I  would  say,  that  it  is  freely 
admitted,  that  this  subject  has  been  ably  and  fully 
discussed  long  ac;o,  and  in  almost  every    age  until 
the    present  lime  ;  and  tlic    author  aims  at  nothing 
more,  in  this  short  treatise,  than  to    exhibit  to  the 
sincere  inquirer,    wlio  may  not  enjoy  better  means 
of   information,  the    substance  of  those  discussions 
and  proofs,  which  oup;ht  to  be  in  the  |)osscssion  of 
evciy    Christian  :   iiis  object     is  not  to   bring  forth 
any  thing  new,  but   to  cdlect,    and  condense    in  a 
narrow  s|,ace,    wiiat  has  been  written   by  the  judi- 
cious and  the    learned,    on  this    important  sul)ject. 
But,  that  discussion  ten<ls  to    induce  doubting,  is  a 
sentiment  unworthy  of  Chiisiians,   who    maintain 
that   their  religion  is  founded  on  the  best  reasons, 
and  who  arc  comnianded   to  give  Lo  every  man  a 
reason  of  the  hope  thai  is-  in   Lheni.     That  faith 
which   is  weakened   by  discussion   is  mere  Jiroju- 
dice,  not  true  Jaith.     They  who  receive  the   most 
impoitani   articles  of    their   religion,    upon   trust, 
from  luimaii  authority,  are  continually  liable  to  be 
thrown  into  doubt  :  and  ihc  only  niethoil  of  obvi- 
ating this  evil,    is  to  dig  deep  and  lay  our  founda- 
tioii  upon  a  rock.     If  tliis  objection  had  any  weight, 
it  would  discourage  all    ai tempts   to  esiablisfi  the 
b2 


14 

trulh  of  our  holy  religion,  by  argument ;  and  would 
also  damp  the  spirit  of  free  inqjiry,  on  every  im- 
portant suhject.  It  is  true,  however,  that  the  first 
efifect  of  free  discussion,  may  be,  to  shake  that  ea- 
sy confidence.,  which  most  men  entertain,  that  all 
their  opinions  are  correct  :  but  the  beneficial  result 
will  be,  that  instead  of  a  persuasion,  having  no  oth- 
er foundation  than  prejudice,  it  will  generate  a  faith 
resting  on  the  firm  basis  of  evidence. 

There  is  undoubtedly  among  Christians  too  great 
a  disposition  to  acquiesce,  without  examination,  in 
the  religion  of  their  forefathers.  There  :s  too 
great  an  aversion  to  that  kind  of  research,  which 
requires  time  and  labour  ;  so,  that  many  who  are 
fully  competent  to  examine  the  foundation  on  which 
their  religion  rests,  never  take  the  pains  to  enter- 
on  the  investigation  ;  and  it  is  to  be  regretted, that 
many  who  are  much  occupied  with  speculations  on 
points  of  theology,  waste  the  energies  of  their 
minds,  on  subjects,  which  can  yield  them  no  nian- 
ner  of  profit,  while  they  neglect  entirely,  or  but 
superficially  attend  to  points  of  fundamental  impor- 
taiice. 

The  two  great  questions  most  deservingthe  atten- 
tion of  all  men  are  ;  first,  whether  the  Bible,  and 
all  that  it  contains,  is  from  God  :  second,  what 
are  those  truths  which  the  Bible  was  intended  to 
teach  us.  These  two  grand  inquiries  are  sufficient 
to  give  occupation  and  vigorous  exercise,  to  intel- 
lectual faculties  of  tne  higiiest  order ;    and  they 


15 

are  not  removed  entirely  out  of  the  reach  ol"  plain, 
uneducated  Christians.  From  the  fountain  of  di- 
vine truth  any  one  may  draw  according  to  iii.s  ca- 
pacity. But  these  inquiries  are  neglected,  not  so 
much  for  want  of  time  and  capacity,  as  because  we 
take  no  pleasure  in  searching  for,  and  comtempla- 
ting,  divine  truth.  Just  in  proportion  as  men  love 
the  truth  anil  value  the  Bible,  they  will  take  an 
interest  in  all  inquiries  which  relate  to  the  authen- 
ticity, canonical  authority,  and  correct  interpreta- 
tion of  the  sacred  books.  The  time  will  come, 
I  doubt  not,  when  these  studies  will  occupy  the 
minds  of  thousands,  where  they  now  engage  the  at- 
tention of  one.  The  Bible  will  grow  into  impor- 
tance in  the  estimation  of  men,  just  in  the  same 
proportion,  as  true  religion  flourishes.  It  will  not 
only  be  the  fashion  to  associate  for  printing  and 
circulating  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  but  it  wil  be- 
come customary,  for  men  of  the  highest  literary 
attainments,  as  well  as  others,  to  study  the  sacred 
pages  with  unceasing  assiduity  and  prayer.  Andy 
in  proportion  as  the  Bible  is  understood  in  its 
simplicity,  and  momentous  import,  the  mere  doc- 
trines of  men  will  disappear  ;  and  the  dogmas  of 
the  schools  and  the  alliance  with  philosophy  be- 
ing renounced,  there  will  be  among  sincere  inqui- 
ries after  truth,  an  increasing  tendency  to  unity  of 
sentiment,  as  well  as  unity  of  spirit.  The  pri-  e  of 
learning  and  of  intellect  being  sacrificed,  and  all 
distinctions  counted   but  loss  for  the  excellency  of 


16 

the  knowlerI,2;e  of  Christ,  a  thousand  knotty  ques- 
tions, which  now  cause  divisions,  and  i2;en(ler  strifes, 
will  he  forgotten  ;  and  the  wonder  of  our  more  en- 
lightened posterity  will  be,  how  good  men  could 
have  wasted  their  lime  and  their  talents  in  such 
unprofitable  speculations  :  and  more  especially, 
ho>v  they  could  have  permitted  themselves,  to  en- 
gage in  fierce  and  unbrotherly  contentious,  about 
matters  of  little  imporlance. 

Then  also,  men  will  no  more  neglect  and  un- 
dervalue the  Scriptures,  on  j)retence  of  possessing 
a  brighter  lii^ht  witiiin  them,  than  that  wliich  em- 
anates from  the  divine  word.  That  spurious  de- 
votion which  affects  a  superiority  to  external  means 
and  ordinances,  will  be  exchanged  for  the  simple, 
sincere  reliance  on  the  revealed  will  of  Gotl  ;  and 
those  assemblies  from  which  the  sacred  volume  is 
now  excluded,  while  the  effusions  of  every  heated 
imagination  are  deemed  revelations  of  the  Spirit, 
will  become  under  the  influence  of  divine  truth, 
churches  of  tlie  living  God. 

In  those  future  days  of  the  prosperity  of  Zion, 
the  service  of  the  most  High  God  will  be  consider- 
ed by  men,  generally, as  the  noblest  employment ; 
and  the  best  talents  and  aitainments  sviH  becf)nse- 
ciateil,  on  the  altar  of  God  ;  and  the  same  etiier- 
prizes,  and  the  same  labours  which  lliey  now  un- 
deit.3ke  to  graiify  an  avarici(jus,  an>hitions.  or 
voluptuous  di -piisiti.'n,  will  I)'.-  inusut.i  fronr  '  've 
to  God  and  man.      The  nitrchant  will  plan,  and 


17 

travel,  and  traffic,  to  obtain  the  means  of  propaga- 
ting the  2;ospel  in  foreign  parts,  and  promoting 
Christian  knowledge  at  home  ;  yea  the  common 
labourer  will  cheerfully  endure  toil  and  privation, 
that  he  may  have  a  mite  to  cast  into  the  treasury 
of  the  Lord. 

Now,  many  consider  all  that  is  given  to  circu- 
late the  Bible,  and  to  send  missionaries  and  tracts 
for  the  instruction  of  the  ignorant,  as  so  much  wast- 
ed ;  but  then.,  all  expenditures  will  be  considered 
as  profuse  and  wasteful,  which  terminate  in  mere 
selfish  gratification  ;  and  those  funds  will  alone  be 
reckoned  useful,  which  are  applied  to  promote  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  welfare  of  men. 

These, however,  may  appear  to  many  as  the  vis- 
ions of  a  heated  imagination,  which  will  never  be 
realized  ;  but  if  the  same  change  in  the  views  and 
sentiments  of  men  which  has  been  going  on  for 
thirty  years  past,  shall  continue  to  advance  with 
the  same  steady  pace,  half  a  century  will  not  have 
elapsed  from  the  present  time,  before  such  a  scene 
will  be  exhibited  to  the  admiring  eyes  of  believers, 
as  will  afford  full  ground  to  justify  hopes  as  san- 
guine, as  those  expressed  in  the  foregoing  antici- 
pations. 

But  I  have  wandered,  wide  of  my  subject — I 
will  now  recall  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the 
consideration  of  the  exceeding  great  importance  of 
ascertaining  the  true  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture. 
This  investigation  may  indeed,  appear  dry,  and  un- 


18 

enlertaining;,  but  every  thins;  which  bears  any 
relanon  to  the  great  Cliarler  of  our  privileges 
and  our  hopes  ought  to  be  interesting  to  us.  It 
has  been  my  object,  lo  bring  thi."?  subject  not  only 
more  c.-nvenientiy  withiu  the  reach  of  the  The- 
ological student,  but  also  to  a  level  withthe  capa- 
city of*  the  common  christian.  That  this  little 
woik  may  in  some  humble  degree  subserve  the 
cause  of  the  Bible,  is  the  sincere  prayer  of 

THE  AUTHOR 


SECTIOir    I. 


KARLY  USE,    AND  IMl'OUr  OF    TEIK  WORD  CANON. 

The  word  canon,  literally,  signif-es  JP  rule  ; 
and  it  is  used  in  this  sense,  several  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  as  Gal.  vi.  Hi.  Jis  many  as 
walk  according  lo  this  rxdc.  V\\\\.  iii.  16.  Lei 
lis  walk  by  the  satne.  rule. 

But  in  these  passages,  there  is  no  reference  to 
the  Scriptures,  as  a  volume. 

The  word  canon,  however,  was  early  used  by 
the  Christian  Fathers,  to  clesio;iiate  the  inspired 
Scriptures.  Iken(ei's,  speakinp;  of  ihe  Scriptures, 
calls  them  the  ca.non  ov  truth.  Clement  of 
Aifxandria,  referring;  to  a  quotalion  of  tin;  Gospel 
accordiiia;  to  the  Ksiyptians,  says,  "  Hni  ihcy 
follow  any  thing,  rather  than  'jhe  true  evangel- 
ical  CANON." 

Elsebius  says  of  Origen,  "  But  in  tlie  firsL 
book  of  his  comnientarits  on  the  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew, observing  the  ECCLKsiAsriCAL  canon, 
he  d'clii     .,  that   he  knew  uf  four  Gosjiels  «inly." 

Athanasius,  in  his  Festal  Epistle,  speaks  of 
three  sorts  of  l)o((ks  ;  'ihe  canomcai.  ;  sucli  as 
were  allowed   to  he  read  ;  and  buch  as  were  Apo- 


20 

ci'vphal.  By  the  first  he  evidently  means,  such  as 
we  now  call  canomcal. 

The  Council  of  Laodicea  ordained,  "that 
none  but  canonical  books  should  be  read  in  the 
church  ;  that  is,  the  books  of  the  Old,  and  New 
Testament." 

Ru  I^,  after  enumerating;  the  bonks  of  the  Old 
and  New  Teslanients,  goes  on  to  mention  three 
classes  of  books,  l.  Such  as  were  included  in 
the  canon  ;  2.  Ecclesiastical,  or  such  as  were  al- 
lowed to  be  read  ;  3.  Apocryphal,  such  as  were 
not  permitted  to  be  puhlicly   read. 

Jekome  often  speak-^  of  the  canon  of  Scripture, 
and  mentions  books  which  might  be  read,  but 
did   not  belong  to  the  canon. 

The  third  council  of  Carthage  ordained, 
"that  nothing  beside  the  canonical  scriptubes 
be  read  in  the  ctiurch,  under  the  name  of  the 
Divine  Scriptures." 

Augustine  often  makes  mention  of  the  can- 
onical scriptuues,  and  the  whole  canon  of 
scuiptuke  ;  meaning  to  designate  all  the  sacred 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  "  We 
read  of  sonse,"  says  he,  "that  they  searched  the 
Scriptures  daily,  whether  these  things  were  so. 
Wliat  Scriptures,  I  pray,  excppt  the  canonical 
Scuptures,  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  To 
them  have  been  since  added,  the  Gospels,  the 
Epistles  of  the  Apostles,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
and  the  Revelaiion  of  John." 


21 

Chkysostom  says,  ^'Tliey  fall  info  great  absurd- 
ities, who  will  not  follow  the  Canon  of  the  Di- 
vine Scripture,  but  trust  to  tbeir  own  reason- 
ing. " 

Isidore  of  Pelusium  observes,  "That  these  things 
are  so,  we  shall  perceive,  if  we  attend  to  the  Canon 
OP  truth;  the  Divine  Scriptures." 

And  LtONTius  of  Constantinople,  having  cited 
the  whole  catalogue  of  the  books  of  Sacred  Scrip- 
ture,from  Genesis  to  Revelation, concludes,  "These 
are  the  ancient  and  the  new  books,  whicii  are  re- 
ceived in  the  church,  as  CAi>fONicAi,. " 

From  the  authorities  cited  above,  it  will  evident- 
ly appear,  that  at  an  early  period,  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures were  carefully  distinguished  from  all  other 
writings,  and  formed  a  rule,  which  all  Christi ms 
considered  to  be  authoratative  :  and  that  this  col- 
lection of  sacred  writings,  received  the  name  of 
Cano.v. 

The  division  of  the  sacred  books  which  is  most 
ancient  and  universal,  is,  into  the  Old  Testamknt, 
and  the  New  Testament.  The  Apostle  P.uil, 
hiinself,  lays  a  foundation  for  this  distinction  ; 
for,  in  his  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  he 
uses  the  phrases.  Old  Testament,  and  New  Test- 
ament :  and  in  one  instance,  designates  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Law,  by  the  former  title;  For  until 
this  day,   says  he,  remainetfi  the  same  veil  un- 

2  Cor.  ill.  14. 
C 


23 

taken  away  in  tKe  reading  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 

It  is  our  object,  in  this  work,  to  inquire  into 
the  Canon,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
and  to  discuss  all  the  principal  questions,  connect- 
ed with  this  subject. 


SEOTIOXr     iz. 


lIONSTITiniON  OF  THK  CANON  OF  THE  OIJ)  TKS- 
TA.MENT  UY  KZUA-TIIK  CANON  OF  THI,  OLD  I  KS- 
TAMFAT  AS  IP  NOW  EXISIS,  SANC IIONKI)  l»Y 
CriRIST  AND  HIS  APOSTLES— CAT  A  LO(  J  UES  OF  I  HE 
BOOKS  HY  SOME  OF  THE  EARLY  FA  IIIEItS— A(iUEE 
MENT  OF  JEWS  AND  CHKIS  I  lANS  ON   llllS  SUUJEC  T. 

The  five  books  of  Moses,  were,  when  finished, 
carefully  deposited  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  ihe 
Covenant,  Ueut.  xxxi.  24,  25,  26.  And  it  came 
to  pass,  when  Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing 
ihe  words  of  this  Law  in  a  Iwok,  until  they  were 
finished,  that  Moses  commanded  the  Levites 
which  bore  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord, 
sayins^,  take  this  hook  of  the  Law,  and  put  it  in 
the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  tlie  Lord 
your  God,  that  it  may  be  there  for  a  witness 
against  thee. 

No  douljt,  copies  of  the  sacred  volume  were 
made  out  before  it  was  deposited  in  the  most  holy 
place  ;  for  as  it  was  there  inaccessible  to  any  but 
the  priests,  the  people  generally  must  have  remain- 
ed ignorant,  had  there  been  no  copies  of  the  Law. 
But  we  know  that  copies  were  written,  for  it  was 
one  of  the  laws  respecting  the  duty  of  a  king,  when 


24 

such  an  officer  should  be  appointed,  that  he  should 
write  out  a  copy  of  the  Law  with  his  own  hand. 
Deut.  xvii.  18 — 20,  And  it  shall  be  lohen  he  sit. 
teth  upon  the  throne  of  his  kingdom,  that  he  shall 
write  him  a  copy  of  this  taw  in  a  book,  out  of 
that  which  is  before  the  priests,  the  Levites. 
*^nd  it  shall  he  with  him,  and  he  shall  read 
therein,  all  the  days  of  his  life  ;  that  he  may 
lenrn  to  fear  the  Lord  his  God,  to  keep  all  the 
words  of  this  laio  and  these  statutes  to  do  them,. 
That  his  heart  be  not  lifted  up  above  his  breth' 
ren,  and  that  he  turn  not  aside  from  the  com- 
rnandment  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left :  to 
the  end  that  he  may  prolong  his  days  in  his 
kingdom,,  he  and  his  children  in  the  midst  of 
Israel.  It  is  related  by  Josephus,  that  by  the  di- 
rection of  Moses,  a  copy  of  the  law  was  prepared 
for  each  of  the  triljes  of  Israel. 

It  seems  that  the  book  of  Joshua  was  annexed  to 
the  volume  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  for  we  read,  that 
Joshua  wrote  these  words  in  the  book  of  the  law 
of  God.  And  the  matters  contained  in  this  book, 
were  of  public  concern  to  the  nation,  as  well  as 
those  recorded  in  the  law.  For,  as  in  the  latter 
were  written  statutes  and  ordinances,  to  direct 
them  in  all  matters  sacred  and  civil;  so,  in  the  for- 
mer was  recorded,  the  division  of  the  land  among 
the  tribes.     The  possession  of  each  tribe  was  here 

See  Josh.  i.  8,  xxiv.  26. 


25 

accurately  flpfined  ;  fo  that  this  hook  served  as  a 
National  tlce-il  of  eonveyanco.  When  oilier  books 
were  added  to  the  Canon,  no  doubt,  the  inspired 
men  who  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  write 
them,  would  he  c;ireful  to  deposit  copies  in  the 
sanctuary,  and  to  have  other  copies  put  into  circu- 
lation. But  on  this  subject  we  have  nopreci>«e  in- 
formation. We  know  not  with  what  deorree  of 
care  the  sacred  books  were  guarded,  or  to  what  ex- 
tent copies  were  multiplied. 

A  sin';le  fact  shows  that  the  sacred  auton;raph 
of  Moses  had  well  nigh  perished,  in  tlie  idolatrous 
reigns  of  Manasseh  and  Anion,  but  was  found, 
during  the  reign  of  the  pious  Josiah,  among  the 
rubbish  of  the  temple.  It  cannot,  however,  be 
reasonably  supposed,  that  there  were  no  other  co- 
pies of  the  law  scattered  through  the  nation.  It 
does  indeed  seem  that  the  young  king  had  never 
seen  the  book,  and  was  ignorant  of  its  contents,  un- 
til it  was  now  read  to  him  ;  but  while  the  copy  in 
the  temple  had  been  misplaced,  and  buiied  among 
the  ruins,  many  pious  men  might  have  possessed 
private  copies. 

And  although  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and 
of  the  temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  this  precious 
volume  was,  in  all  probability,  destroyed  with  the 
ark  aiid  all  the  holy  apparatus  of  the  sanctuary  j 
yet,  we  are  not  to  credit  the  Jewish  tradition,  too 
readily  received  by  t  le  Christian  Fathers,  thit  on 
tJiis  occasion  all  the  copies  of  the  iicriptures  were 
c2 


26 

lost,  and  that  Kzra  restored  the  whole  by  miracle. 
This  i>>  a  mere  Jewish  fable,  depending  on  no 
higher  authority  than  a  passage  in  the  fourth  book 
of  Esdras,  and  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  facts 
recorded  in  the  sacred  volume.  Wc  know,  that 
Daniel  had  a  copy  of  the  Scriptures,  for  he  quotes 
thern,and  makes  express  mention  of  the  Prophecies 
of  Jeremiah.  And  Ezra  is  called,  a  ready  scribe 
in  the  Law ;  and  it  is  said,  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  Ezra,  that  when  the  temple  was  finished, 
the  functions  of  the  priests  and  Levites  were  re- 
gulated, as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  Mo- 
ses. And  this  was  many  years  before  Ezra 
came  to  Jerusalem.  And  in  the  eighth  chapter  of 
Nehemiah,  it  is  said,  that  Ezra,  at  the  request  of 
the  people,  brought  the  law  before  the  congrega- 
tion, and  he  read  therein  from  the  morning  un- 
til mid  day.  *find  Ezra  opened  the  book  in  the 
sight  of  all  the  people.  It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that  all  the  copies  of  the  Scpritures  were  not  lost 
during  the  captivity.  This  story,  no  doubt,  orig- 
inated from  two  facts :  the  first,  that  the  auto- 
graphs, in  the  temple  had  been  destroyed  with 
that  sacred  edifice  ;  and  the  second,  that  Ezra 
took  great  pains  to  have  correct  copies  of  the  Scrip- 
tures prepared  and  circulated. 

It  seems  to  be  agreed  by  all,  that  the  forming  of 
the  present  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  should  be 
attributed  to  Ezra.  To  assist  him  in  this  work,  the 
Jewish  writers  inform  us,  that  there  existed  in  his 


27 

time,  A  UREAT  SYNAGOGUE,  consistirifij  of  one  hund- 
red and  twenty  men,  including  Daniel  and  liis  three 
friends,  Shadrach,    Meshech    and  Abednego  ;     the 
prophets  Hag;a;ai  and  Zechariah  ;  and  also  Simon  the 
Just.  }juf  it  is  very  absurd  to  suppose  that  all  these 
lived  at  one  time,   and  formed   one   synaf^oguc,    as 
they  are  pleased  to  represent  it:   for,  from  the  time 
of  Daniel  to   that   of  Simon  the  Just,  no  less  than 
two  huiulred  and  fifty  years  must  have  intervened. 
It   is,    liowever,    no   how  improbable,  that  Kzra 
was  assisted    in    this  great  work   by  many  learned 
and  pious  men,  who  were  contemporary  with  him  ; 
and  as  prophets  had   always  been   the  superintend- 
ents, as  well  as  writers  of  the  sacred  volume,   it  is 
likely    that   the  inspired   men  who   lived   at    the 
same  time  as  Ezra, would   give   attention   to    this 
work.      But  in  regard  to  this  great  synagogue,  the 
only  thing  probable  is,  that  the  men,  who  are  said 
to  have  belonged  to  it,  did  not  live  in  one  age,  but 
successively,  until  the  time  of  Simon  the  Just,  who 
was  made  high  priest  about  twenty   five  years  af- 
ter the  death  of  Alexander  the  Great.      This  opin- 
ion has  its  probability  increased,  by  the  considera- 
tion, that  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  appears 
not  to  have   been  fully  completed,   until  about  tne 
time  of    Simon  the  Just.    Malachi    seems  to    hive 
lived  after  the  time  of  Ezra,  and  therefore  his  pro- 
phecy could  not  have  been  added  to  the  Canon  by 
this  eminent  scribe;    uidess  we  adopt  the  opinion 
of  the  Jews,  who  will  have  Malachi  to  be  no  other 


28 

than  Ezra  himself  ;  maintaining,  that  while  Ezra 
was  Ills  proper  name,  he  received  that  of  Malachi, 
from  the  circu instance  of  his  having  been  sent  to 
superintend  the  religious  concerns  of  the  Jews  ; 
for  the  import  of  that  name  is,  a  viessenger,  or 
one  sent 

But  this  is  not  all,  in  the  book  of  Nehemiah,  men- 
tion is  made  of  the  high  priest  Jaddua,  and  of  Da- 
rius Codomannus,  king  of  Persia,  both  of  whom 
lived  at  least  a  hundred  years  after  the  time  of 
Ezra.  In  the  third  chapter  of  the  first  book  of 
Chronicles, the  genealogy  of  the  sons  of  Zerubbabel 
is  carried  down,  at  least  to  the  time  of  Alexander 
the  Great.  This  book,  thereC^re,  could  not  have 
been  put  itito  the  Canon  by  Ezra  ;  nor  much  ear- 
lier than  the  time  of  Simon  the  Just.  The  book  of 
Esther  also  was  probably  added  during  this  in- 
terval. 

The  probable  conclusion,  therefore,  is,  that  Ezra 
began  this  work, and  collected  and  arranged  all  tlie 
sa.M-fd  books  which  belonged  to  the  Canon  before 
his  time,  and  that  a  succession  of  pious  and  learn- 
ed men  continued  to  pay  attention  to  the  Canon, 
until  tlie  whole  vvas  completed,  about  the  time  of 
Simon  the  Just.  After  which,  nothing  was  ever 
added  to  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Most,  however,  are  of  opinion  that  nothing  was 
added  after  the  book  of  Malachi  was  written,    ex- 

Neh.  xii.  22. 


S9 

cept  a  few  names,  and  notes;  and  that  all  the  books 
hflonjrino;  to  the  Canon  of  tlieOl.i  Testament,  were 
collected  and  inserted  in  the  sacred  volume  by  Ez- 
ra himself.  And  tiiis  opinion  seems  to  bo  the  sa- 
fest, and  is  no  how  incre«lible  in  itself.  It  accords 
also  with  the  uniform  tradition  of  the  Jevvs,  that 
Ezra  completed  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  ; 
an(.  that  after  Malachi  there  arose  no  prophet,  who 
added  any  thino;  to  the  sacred   volume. 

Whether  the  books  were,  now  collected  into  a  sin- 
o-le  volume,  or  were  bound  up  in  several  codicea^ 
is  a  question  of  no  importance:  if  vve  can  ascertain 
what  books  were  received  as  Canonical,  it  matters 
not  in  what  form  they  were  preserved.  It  seems  pro- 
bable, however,  that  the  sacred  books  were  at  ihis 
time  distributed  into  three  volumes,  the  Law;  the 
Prophkts  ;  and  the  HAGif)GKAPHA.  This  divis- 
ion, we  know  to  be  as  ancient  as  the  time  of  our 
Saviour,  for  he  says,  These,  are  the  words  which 
I  spake  unto  yon  while  I  was  yet  with  yoK,  that 
all  things  /night  be  fulfilled,  which  are  written 
in  THE  Law,  and  in  the  Phophets,  and  in  ihe 
Psalms,  concerninic  me.  Josephus,  also,  makes 
mention  of  this  division,  and  it  is  by  the  Jews, 
wiih  one  consent,  referred  to  Ezra,  as  its  author. 

In  establishing  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
we  miujht  Inhour  under  considerable  uncfTtainty 
and    embarrasment,    in  regard   to    several  books, 

Luke  xxiv.  44. 


36 

were  it  not,  that  the  whole  of  what  were  called 
THE  ScKiPTURES,  aiid  which  were  included  iu  the 
threefold  division,  mentioned  above,  received  the 
explicit  sanction  of  our  Lord.  He  was  not  back- 
ward to  reprove  the  Jews  for  disobeying,  misinter- 
preting;, and  adding  their  traditions,  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  he  never  drops  a  hint  that  they  had  been 
unfaithful  or  careless,  in  the  preservation  of  the  sa- 
cred books.  So  far  from  this,  he  refers  to  the 
ScKiPTUREs  as  an  infallible  rule,  which  must  he 
fulfilled,  and  could  not  he  broken.  Search  the 
scriptures,  said  he,  for  hi  them  ye  think  ye  have 
eternal  lif chut  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me. 
The  errors  of  the  Sadducees  are  attributed  to  an 
ignorance  of  the  Scriptures  :  and  they  are  never 
mentioned  but  with  the  highest  respect,  and  as  the 
unerring  word  of  God.  The  apostle  Paul,  also, 
referring,  principally,  if  not  wholly,  to  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  TestaiTient,  says,  ^nd  that  from 
a  child  thou  hast  known  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation. 
Sll  Scripture  is  giveti  by  inspiration  of  God. 
They  are  also  called  by  this  apostle  the  oracles 
OF  God  ;  the  livi.ly  oracles,  the  word  op 
GOD  ;  and  when  quotations  are  made  from  David, 
it  is  represented  as  the  Holy    Ghost  speaking  by 

Mark  xiv.  49.  John  x.  35. 

John  V.  39.  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  16. 

Heb.  ui.  7.  James  i.  21—23. 


31 

the  mouth  of  David.  The  testimony  of  Peter  is 
not  less  explicit,  for  he  says  :  The  prophecy  ; 
came  not  in  old  time  l)y  the.  will  of  m.uii,  but  holy 
men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  And  the  apostle  James  speaks  of 
the  Scriptures,  with  pqual  confidence  and  res- 
pect ;  Jind receive  with  meekness, says  he,  the  in- 
grafted ivord  tohich  is  able  to  save  your  souls. 
Jind  the  scripture  tvas  fulfilled  ivhich  saith, 
&c.  Do  ye  think  that  the  Scripture  saith  in 
vain?  &c. 

We  have,  therefore,  an  important  point  estab- 
lished with  the  utmost  certainty,  that  the  volume 
of  Scripture  which  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles, was  unconupted,  and  was  esteem- 
ed by  them  an  inspired  and  infallible  rule.  Now, 
if  we  can  asccrlain  what  books  were  then  included 
in  the  Sacred  Volume,  we  shall  be  able  to  settle 
the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  without  uncer- 
tainty. 

But  here  lies  the  difficulty.  Neither  Christ,  , 
nor  any  of  his  apostles  has  given  us  a  catalogue 
of  the  books,  which  composed  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  Testament.  They  have  distinctly  quoted 
a  number  of  these  books  ,  and  so  far  the  evidence 
is  complete.  We  know,  that  the  Law  and  the 
Pkopiiets  and  the  Psal^is  were  included  in 
their  Canon.     But  this  does  not  ascertain,  particu- 

2  Pet.  i.  21.  James  iv.  5. 


32 

laHy,  whether  the  very  same  hooks  which  we 
now  find  in  the  Old  Testament  were  then  found 
in  it,  and  no  others.  It  is  necessary  then,  to  re- 
sort to  oihersources  of  information.  And  happily, 
the  Jewish  historian  Josephus  furnishes  us  with 
the  very  information  which  we  want;  not  indeed 
as  explicitly,  as  we  could  wish,  but  sufficiently 
so  to  lead  us  to  a  very  satisfactory  conclusion. 
He  docs  not  name  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  he  numbers  them,  and  so  describes 
them,  that  there  is  scarcely  room  for  any  mistake. 
The  important  passa^je  to  which  we  refer,  is  in  his 
first  book  at  ai  ist  Apion,  "We  have"  says  he  "only 
two  and  twenty  books,  which  are  to  be  believed 
as  of  divine  authority  ;  of  which  five  are  the  books 
of  Moses.  From  the  death  of  Moses,  to  the  reign 
of  Artaxerxes  the  son  of  Xerxes,king  of  Persia, the 
Prophets  who  were  the  successors  of  Moses  have 
written  in  thirteen  books.  The  remaining  four 
books  contain  hymns  to  God,  and  documents  of 
life,  for  the  use  of  men."  Now  the  five  books  of 
Moses  are  universally  agreed  to  be,  Genesis,  Exo- 
dus, Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy.  The 
thirteen  books,  written  by  the  prophets,  will  in- 
clude Joshua,  Judges  with  Ruth,  Samuel,  Kings, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah  with  Lamentations,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel,  the  Twelve  minor  Prophets,  Job,  Ezra, 
Esther,  and  Chronicles.  The  four  remaining 
books  will  be,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  which  make  the  whole 


S3 

number  twentt/-iwo  ;  the  Canon  then  existing  iS 
proved  to  be  the  same,  as  tliat  which  we  now 
possess.  It  would  appear,  indeed,  that  these  books 
might  more  conveniently  be  reckoned  ticenty- 
J\)ur ;  and  this  is  the  present  method  of  num- 
berinjc  them,  by  the  modern  Jews  ;  but  form- 
erly, the  number  was  regulated  by  that  of  the 
Hebrew  alphabet,  which  consists  of  twenty  two 
letters,  therefore,  they  annexed  the  small  book 
of  Ruth  to  Judges;  and  probably  it  is  a  contin- 
uation of  this  book  by  the  same  author.  They 
added,  also,  the  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah  to  his 
prophecy,  and  this  was  natural  enough.  As  to 
the  Minor  Prophets,  which  form  twelve  separate 
books  in  our  Bibles,  they  were  anciently,  always 
reckoned  one  book,  so  they  are  considered  in  ev- 
ery ancient  catalogue,  and  in  all  quotations  from 
thern. 

It  will  not  be  supposed  that  any  change  could 
have  occurred  in  tlie  Canon  from  the  time  of  our 
Saviour  and  his  a|)ostles,  to  that  in  which  Jose- 
phus  wrote.  Indeed,  he  may  be  considered  the 
c  -nleniporary  of  the  apostles,  as  he  was  born 
about  the  time  of  Paul's  conversion  to  Christianity; 
and  was  therefore  grown  up  to  man's  age,  long 
before  the  death  of  this  apostle  ;  and  the  apostle 
Joiin  probably  survived  him.  And  it  must  be  re- 
mtmbored,  that  Josephus  is  here  giving  his  testi- 
mony to  a  public  fact:  he  is  declaring  what  books 
were  received  as   divine   by  his  nation  j    and  he 


34 

does  it  without  hesitation,  or  inconsistency.  "  We 
have"  says  he  *'  only  twenty  two  books,  which  are 
believed  to  be  of  divine  authority." 

We  are  able  also  to  adduce  other  testimony,  to 
prove  the  same  thing.  Some  of  the  early  Clirist- 
ian  Fathers,  who  had  been  brought  up  in  Pagan- 
ism, when  they  embraced  Christianity,  were 
curious  in  their  inquiries  into  the  Canon  of  the 
Old  Testament  ;  and  the  result  of  the  researches 
of  some  of  them,  still  remain.  Melito  bishop  of 
Sardis  travelled  into  Judea, for  the  very  purpose  of 
satisfying  himself  on  this  point.  And  although, 
his  own  writings  are  lost,  Eusebius  has  preserved 
his  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  ; 
from  which  it  appears,  that  the  very  same  books 
were,  in  his  day,  received  into  the  Canon,  as 
are  now  found  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles.  And  the 
interval  between  Melito  and  Josephus  is  not  a 
hundred  years,  so  that  no  alteration  in  the  Canon 
can  De  reasonably  supposed  to  have  taken  place  in 
this  period.  Very  soon  after  Melito,  Okigen  fur- 
nishes us  with  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  perfectl}?-  accords  with  our  Ca- 
non, except  that  he  omits  the  Minor  Prophets  ; 
which  omihsion  muat  have  been  a  mere  slip  of  the 
pen,  in  him  or  his  copyist,  as  it  is  certain,  that  he 
received  this,  as  a  book  of  Holy  Scripture  r  and  the 
number  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  given 
by  him  in  this  very  place,   caunot    be  completed, 


66 

^vithout  reckoning  the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets  as 
one. 

After  Driven, we  have  catalogues,  in  succession, 
not  only  by  men  of  the  first  authority  in  the  church, 
bill  by  councils,  consisting  of  numerous  bishops, all 
which  are  perfectly  the  same  as  our  own.  It  will 
be  sufficient  merely  to  refer  to  these  sources  of  in- 
formotion.  Catalogues  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  ha  e  been  given  by  Athanasius  ;  by 
Ctkil  ;  by  Augustine  ;  by  Jebomk  ;  by  Rupin  ; 
by  THE  COUNCIL  OF  Laodicea,  in  their  LX.  Ca- 
non :  and  by  i  he  council  of  Cakthage.  And 
when  it  is  considered,  that  all  these  catalogues  ex- 
actly correspond  with  our  present  Canon  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  the  evidence,  I  think,  must  appear 
complete  to  every  impartial  mind,  that  the  Canon 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  settled  upon  the  clearest 
historical  grounds.  There  seems  to  be  nothing  to 
be  wished  for  further,  in  the  confirmation  of  this 
point 

But  if  all  this  testimony  had  been  wanting, 
there  is  still  a  source  of  evidence,  to  which  we 
might  refer  with  the  utmost  confidence,  as  per- 
fectly conclusive  on  this  point  ;  1  mean  the  fact 
that  these  books  have  been,  ever  since  the  time  of 
Christ  and  his  apostes,in   the  keeping  of  both  Jews 

and  Chrislians,who  have  been  constantly  arrayed  in 
opposition  to  each  other  ;  so  that  it  was  impossi- 
ble, that  any  change  should  have  been  made  in  the 

Canon,  by  either  party,  without  being  immediate- 


ly  detected  by  the  other.     And  the  conclusive  cr- 
idenee  that    no    alteration  in  the  Canon  has  oc- 
curred,   is,   the  perfect  agreement  of  these  hostile 
parties,  in  regard  to  the  books  of  the    Old    Testa- 
ment,  at  this  time.      On  this  point,  the  Jew  and 
Christian  are  harmonious.     There  is  no  complaint 
of  addition    or  diminution  of  the  sacred  books,  on 
either  sifle.     The  Hebrew  Bible  of  the  Jew,  is  the 
Bible  of  the  Christian.    There  is  here  no  diffei'ence. 
A  learned  Jew  and  Christian  have  even  been  uni- 
ted, in  publishing  an  excellent  edition  of  the   He- 
brew Bible.*  Now,  if  any  alteration  in  the  Canon 
has  occurred,   it  must  have  been  by  the  concert,  or 
collusion  of  both  parties,  but  how  absurd  this  idea 
is,  must  be  manifest  to  all. 

I  acknowledge  what  is  here  said  of  the  agree- 
ment of  Christians  and  Jews,  can  Only  be  said  in 
relation  to  Protestant  Christians.  For  as  to  those 
of  the  Romanist  and  Greek  Communions, they  have 
admitted  other  books  into  the  Canon,  which  Jews 
and  Protestants  hold  to  be  Apocryphal  ;  but  these 
books  will  form  the  subject  of  a  particular  discus- 
sion, in  the  sequel  of  this  work. 

The  fact  is  important,  that  a  short  time  after  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  closed,  a  transla- 
tion was  made  of  the  whole  of  the  books  into  the 
Greek  language.  This  translation  was  made,  at  Al- 
exandria, in  Egypt,  at  the  request,    it  is   said,   of 

*  See  tbe  Biblia  Hebraica,  edited  by  LeusdenaJid  Athiar 


37 

Ptolemy  Philadelpbus,  kinw  of  Ea^ypt.  that  he 
niis;ht  have  a  copy  of  these  saciod  books  in  the  fa- 
mous library  which  he  was  en^a^ed  in  collecting. 
It  is  called  the  Septuagint,  from  its  beinpf  made 
accordino;  to  the  accounts  which  have  been  handed 
down,  by  seventy,  or  rather  seventy  two,  men  ; 
six  from  each  of  the  tribes  of  Israel.  So  many  fab- 
ulous thinsjs  have  been  reported  concernina;  tliig 
version  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  ascertain  the  pre- 
cise truth.  But  it  is  manifest  from  internal  evi- 
dence, that  it  was  not  the  work  of  one  hand,  nor, 
probably,  of  one  set  of  translators  :  for,  while  some 
books  are  rendered  with  great  accuracy,  and  in  a 
very  literal  manner,  others  are  translated  with  lit- 
tle care,  aud  the  meaning  of  the  original  is  very 
imperfectly  given. 

The  probability  is,  that  the  Pentateuch  was  first 
translated,  and  the  other  books  were  added  from 
time  to  time,  by  different  hands  ;  but  when  the' 
work  was  once  begun,  it  is  not  likely  that  it  would 
be  long  before  the  whole  was  completed. 

Now  this  Greek  version  contains  all  the  books 
which  are  found  in  our  Canonical  Hebrew  Bibles. 
It  is  a  good  witness  therefore  to  prove,  that  all 
these  books  were  in  the  Canon,  when  this  version 
was  made.  The  Apocryphal  books  which  have 
long  been  connected  with  this  version,  will  furnish 
a  subject  for  consideration  herafter. 

There  is,   moreover,  a  distinct   and  remarkable 
testimony  to  the  antiquity  of  the  four  books  of  Mo- 
D  2 


38 

ses  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  which  h^s  exist- 
ed in  a  form  entirely  separate  from  the  Jewish  ca- 
pies,  and  in  a  character  totally  different  from  that, 
in  which  the  Hehrevv  Bible  has  been  for  many 
a^es  written.  It  has  also  been  preserved  and 
handed  down  to  us^,  by  a  people,  who  have  ever 
been  hostile  to  the  Jews.  This  Pentateuch  hasy 
without  doubt,  been  transmitted  through  a  sepa- 
rate channel,  ever'since  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel 
were  carried  captive.  It  furnishes  authentic  testi- 
mony to  the  gtpat  antiquity  of  the  books  of  Mo_ 
ses,  and  shows  how  little  they  have  been  corrupt- 
ed, during  the  lapse  of  nearly  three  thousand 
years. 


SECTiosr  iir. 


APOCRYPHAL  HOOKS,  THEIR  OKIGIS— IMPORT \XCE 
OF  ;)1^I'[N'GU[.SI11XG  BKIVVKKV  CANONICAL  A\D 
APOCUY'  lAI.    BOOKS— SIX    BOOKS    OF    PHIS  (JLASS 

pu)\0UNC!'i)   <;a\omcal  ijy    riiE  council  of 

TRIvVr— NOr  IV    THE  IIEURLW,  NOK   RECEIVEU  BY 
THE  JEWS,    AXCIENP    OR    MODERN. 

The  word  Apocuypha  signifies,  concealed,  ob- 
scure, without  authority.  In  reference  to  the 
Bihle,  it  is  einjiloycd  to  desia;;iate  such  books  as 
clai(n  a  phice  in  the  sacred  volume,  but  which  are 
not  Canonical.  It  is  said  lo  have  been  first  used 
by  Melito  bisliop  of  Sardis. 

An  inquiry  i  ito  tliis  subject  cannot  be  uninfer- 
estins;  to  the  friends  of  the  Bi!)ie  ;  for  it  behoves 
the:n  to  ascertain,  on  the  best  evidence, what  l)ooks 
belong;  to  the  sacred  vohiine,  and  also,  on  what 
grounds  other  books  are  rejected  from  the  C:vc>n. 
This  subject  assumes  a  liigher  importance  fioni  t'le 
faor,  that  Cliristians  are  niu^h  divide  !  on  this  point; 
for,  some  receive  as  of  CanoMicai  authority,  bixdvs 
which  others  reject  as  spiriou^s,  or  coiisi(U'r  merely 
as  human  cotnposilioiis.  On  suci)  a  pcjint,  every 
Christian  should  form  his  opinion  ujion  tlie  best 
information  which  he  can    ibttin. 

In  controversy  with  the  Konianists,  this  subject 


40 

meets  us  at  the  very  threshhold.  It  is  vain  to  dis- 
pute about  particular  doctrines  of  Scripture,  until 
it  is  determined  what  books  are  to  be  received,  as 
Scripture. 

It  has  also  bi^en  recently  found,  that  this  was  a 
point  of  great  iinpurtance,  in  the  circulation  of  the 
Bible.  This  Book  oughtnot  to  be  distributed, maim- 
ed of  some  of  its  parts  ;  nor  should  we  circulate 
mere  human  compositions,  as  the  word  of  God. 
The  Committe  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society,  were  recently  called  upon  to  decide  this 
question,  in  a  case  of  great  practical  importance. 
That  noble  and  Catholic  society,  have,  from  time 
to  time,  aided  the  exertions  of  the  pious  and  liber- 
ally minded  members  of  the  Romanist  church,  in 
circulating  their  own  versions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Here  there  existed  no  difference  of  opini- 
on, as  to  the  books  which  were  Canonical;  but  they 
lately  received  an  application  from  that  zealous  and 
indefatigable  friend  of  the  Bible, ProfessorVAN'Ess, 
to  grant  him  aid  from  their  funds,  to  enable  him 
to  put  the  Old  Testament  also  into  circulation, 
among  the  people  of  his  communion.  To  this  no 
objection  was  at  first  made  ;  and  the  funds  of  the 
Society  w  re  applied  to  aid  in  printing  and  circu- 
lating Bibles  which  contained  the  Apocrypha,  on 
the  Continent  of  Europe.  But  the  Auxiliary  Bi- 
ble Society  of  Edinburg,  not  being  satisfied  with 
this  proceeding,  sent  up  to  the  P.irent  Society  a 
protest  against  it,  as  being  inconsistent  with  the 


41 

rarlical  principle  of  their  constitution  ;  viz.  that 
they  would  circulate  tlie  Bible  without  note  or 
comment.  Tliis  brought  the  question  before  tlic 
Committee  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Socie- 
ty, under  very  interesting;  circumstances,  and  the 
opinion  of  the  friends  of  the  Society  appeared  to 
be  much  divided  ;  so  that  great  fears  were  enter- 
tained, lest  it  should  become  the  occasion  of  dis- 
turbing the  harmony  of  this  important  Association. 
But  the  business  was  managed  by  the  Committee, 
with  that  consummate  wisdom  which  has  uniform- 
ly marked  their  counsels  and  proceedings.  The 
whole  subject  was  referred  to  a  select  and  learned 
sub-committee  :  who  afier  mature  deliberation, 
brought  in  a  report,  which  was  adopted,  and  led 
to  the  following  wise  resolution  in  the  General 
Committee,  viz.  "That  the  funds  of  the  S  ciely 
be  applied  to  the  prmting  and  circulation  of  the 
Canonical  books  of  Scripture,  to  the  exclusion  of 
those  books  and  parts  of  books,  which  are  termed 
Apocryphal :  and  that  all  copies  printed,  either  en- 
tirely or  in  part,  at  the  expense  of  the  Society, 
and  whether  such  copies  consist  of  the  whole,or  of 
any  one  or  more  of  such  books,  be  invariably  is- 
sued bound,  no  other  book  whatever  being  bound 
with  them  ;  and  farther,  that  all  money  grants,  to 
Societies  or  indivir'uitls,  be  made  only  in  conformi- 
ty with  the  principle  of  this  regulation." 

*'  In  the  Sacred  Volume,  as  it  is  to  be  hereafter 
distributed  by  the  Society,  there  is  to  be  nothing 


42 

but  rl"''ine  truth,  notbino;  but  what  is  aoknow- 
leilfij'd  by  all  Christians  to  Ke  siicli.  Of  course  all 
may  unite  in  the  work  of  (tistrllnition,  even  should 
they  regard  the  Volume  as  containing  but  part  of 
the  inspi  ed  writinsrs  :  just  as  they  might  in  the 
circulation  of  the  Pr;ntateuch,  or  the  Book  of 
Psalms,  or  the  Prophets,  or  the  New  Testament. 
Such  harmonious  operation  would  not,  hovvever, 
be  possible,  if  the  books  of  the  Apocrypha  were 
mingled,  or  joined  with  the  rest  ;  and  besides, 
those,  who  have  the  strongest  obj^-ction  to  the 
Ap'crjpha,  are,  ordinarily,  tliose  who  are  most 
forward  in  active  and  liberal  efforts  to  send  the 
word  of  God  to  all  people." 

This  judicious  decision  of  the  Committee  of  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  depends  for  its 
correctnessjon  the  supposition, that  the  books  of  the 
Apocrypha  are  not  Canonical;  fr, whatever  may  be 
said  about  circulating  a  part  of  the  Bible,  it  was  un- 
doubtedly the  original  object  of  this  S-ciety  to 
print  and  circulate  the  whole  of  the  Sacred  Vol- 
ume. Hence  appears  the  practical  importance  of 
the  inquiry  which  we  have  here  instituted,  to  as- 
certain,whether  these  books  have  any  claim,  what- 
ever, to  a  place  in  the  Sacred  Canon. 

At  a  very  early  period  of  the  Christian  churchj 
great  pains  were  taken  to  distinguish  between  such 
books  as  were  inspired  and  Canonical,  and  such  as 
were  written  by  uninspired  men.     It  has  neve 


43 

been  doubted  amons;  Christians,  that  thcCanonical 
books  only,  were  of  divine  aulli^rity,  and  furnish- 
ed an  infalible  rule  of  faith  and  pr.ictice  ;  but  it 
has  not  bi-en  agreed  what  books  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered Canonical, and  what  Ai)Ocryphal.  In  regard 
to  those  which  have  already  been  enumerated,  as 
belonging  to  the  Old  Teslament,  th>  re  is  a  pretty 
general  consent  of  Jews  and  Christians,  of  Roman- 
ists and  Protestants  ;  but  in  regard  to  some  other 
books  there  is  a  wide  difference  of  opinion. 

The  council  of  Trent  in  their  fourth  session 
gave  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
among  which  are,  included,  Tobias,  Juijith,Wis- 

.DOM,     ECCLESIASTICUS,    BaRUCH,    and    TWO    BO  )KS 

OFTHt  Maccabees.*  Besides,  they  included  un- 
der the  name  of  Esther  and  Daniel,  certain  addi- 
tional chapters,  which  are  not  found  in  the  He- 
brew copies.  Tlie  hook  of  Esliier  is  made  to  con- 
sist of  sixteen  chapters;  and  prefixed  to  the  book 
of  Daniel  is  the  the  histoky  of  Susanna  ;  the 
Song  of  the  three  Children,  is  inserted  in  the 
third  chapter;  and  the  history  of  Bel  and  the 
Dragon  is  added,  at  the  end  of  this  book.  Other 
books,  which  are  found  in  the  Greek,  or  Latin  Bi- 
bles, tney  rejected,  as  Apocryphal  ;  as,  the  third 
and  fourth    books   of  Esdras  ;t    the  third   book  of 

"  See  Note  A. 

f  The  First  and  Second  books  of  Esdras,  are  very  fre- 
quently called  the  Third  and  Fourth;  in  which  case  the 
'wo  canoiucul  books  Ezra  and  NeJieiniah  are  reckoned  th-? 


44 

Maccabees  ;  the  cli.  Psalm  ;  the  Appendix  to  Job  ; 

and  the  Preface  to  Lamentations. 

Both  these  classes  of  books,  all  denominations 
of  Protestants  consider  Apocryphal  ;  hut  as  the 
Kno:lish  churcli,'in  her  Litiiri;;y,  dirpcts,  ihat  cer- 
tain lessons  shall  be  read  from  the  former,  for  the 
insiructiun  of  the  people,  hui  not  for  c.tnfirmation 
of  doctrine,  they  are  retidned  in  the  larger  co- 
pies of  the  English  Bible,  but  are  not  mingled 
w'ilh  the  Canonical  books,  as  in  the  Vulgale,  but 
pUiced  at  the  end  of  the  Old  Testament,  under  the 
title  of,  Apocrypha.  It  is  certainly  U)  be  regret- 
ted, that  tbese  books  are  permitted  to  be  included 
in  the  same  volume,  which  contains  the  livkly  or-- 

ACLES  ; THE    WOKD  OF    GoD  ; — THE   HoLY  ScKIP- 

TTTREs  ;  all  of  which  were  given  by  inspiration  : 
and  more  to  be  regretted  still,  that  they  shuuld 
be  read  in  the  church,  promiscuously  with  the  les- 
sons taken  froni  the  canonical  books  ;  especially 
as  no  notice  is   given  to    the  people,    that  what  is 

Fh-st  and  Second:  for  both  these  books  have  been  ascribed 
to  Ezra  as  their  author;  but  these  are  not  mcluded  in  the 
Ust  ofCanonica]  books,  sanctioned  by  the  Couiicd  of  Trent, 
and  therefore  they  do  not  come  into  controver&y.  Indeed, 
the  Second  of  these  books  is  not  found  even  in  the  Gieek, 
but  only  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  is  so  replete  with  tables 
and  false  Etatements,that  it  has  never  been  esteemed  of  any 
vakio.  They  are  both  however  retained  in  our  larger  En- 
g\if.h  Bibles;  and  are  honoured  with  the  foremost  place, in 
the -order  of  the  Apocryphal  books. 


45 

rea<l  from  tliese  books  is  Apocryphal;  and  as,  in  the 
Prayer  Book  of  the  Episcopal  church  the  tables 
which  refer  to  the  lessons  to  be  read,  have  this  ti- 
tle prefixed  ;  Tables  of  lessons  of  Holy  Script w'c 
to  be  read  at  morning  and  evening  prayer 
throtighoiit  the  year.  Now,  however  good  and 
instructive  these  Apocryphal  lessons  may  be,  it  ne- 
ver can  be  justified,  that  they  should  thus  be  put 
on  a  level  with  the  word  of  God.* 

But  it  is  our  object,  at  present,  to  show,  that 
none  of  these  books,  Canonized  by  the  council  of 
Trent,  and  inserted  in  our  larger  English  Bibles, 
are  Canonical. 

1.  The  first  argument  by  which  it  may  be  prov- 
ed that  these  books  do  not  belong  to  the  Canon  of 
the  Old  Testament,  is,  that  ihey  are  not  found  in 
the  Hebrew  Bible.  They  are  not  written  in  the 
Hebrew  language,  but  in  the  Greek,  which  was  not 
known  to  the  Jews,  until  long  after  inspiration  had 
ceased,  and  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
cloacd.  It  is  rendered  probable,  indeed,  that  sonic 
of  them  were  written  originally  in  the  Chaldaic  ; 
Jerome  testifies  this  to  be  the  fact,  in  regard  to 
1.  Maccabees,  and  Ecclcsiaslicus;  and  he  says, that 
he  translated  the  book  of  Tobit,  out  of  Clialdee  in- 
to Latin  ;  but  this  bouk  is  now  found  in  the  Greek, 
and  there  is  good  reason  for  believing,  that  it  was 

*  See  Tables  prefixed  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer; 
also  THE  SSixTU  Article  of  Religion,  of  thu  Episcopal 
Cliurch. 

£ 


48 

written  originally,  in  this  language.  It  is  certainj 
however,  that  none  of  these  books  were  composed 
in  the  pure  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament 

Hoitinger,  indeed,  informs  us,  that  he  had  seen 
the  whole  of  the  Apoci-ypha  in  pure  Hebrew, 
among  the  Jews  ;  but  he  entertains  no  doubt,  that 
it  was  translated  into  that  language,  in  modern 
times  :  just  as  the  whole  New  Testament  has  re- 
cently been  translated  into  pure  Hebrew. 

It  is  the  common  opinion  of  the  Jews,and  of  the 
Christian  Fathers,  that  Malachi  was  the  last  of 
the  Old  Testament  prophets.  Books  written  by 
uncertain  authors,  afterwards,  have  no  claim  to  be 
reckoned  Canonical ;  and  there  is  good  reason 
for  believing,  that  those  books  were  written  long 
after  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Malachi  ;  and  some  of 
them,  perhaps,  later  than  the  commencement  of  the 
Christian  era. 

2.  These  books,  though  probably  written  iiy 
.Tews,  have  never  been  received  into  the  Canon,  by 
that  people.  In  this,  the  ancient  and  modern  Jews 
are  of  the  same  mind.  Josephus  declares,  "That 
no  more  than  twenty  two  books  were  received  as 
inspired  by  his  nation.''  Philo  who  refers  often 
to  the  Old  Testament,  in  his  writings,  never  makes 
the  least  mention  of  them  ;  nor  are  ihey  recognized 
in  the  Talmud,  as  Canonical.  Not  only  so,  but 
the  Jewish  Rabbies  expressly  reject  them.  Rab- 
bi Azariah,  speakingof  these  books,  says,  "They 
are  received  by  Christians,  not  by  us." 


47 

R.  Gedaliaii,  after  giving  a  catalogue  of  llie 
books  of  (lie  Old  Testament  with  some  account  of 
their  authors,  adds  these  words,  "  It  is  worth  while 
to  know  that  the  nations  of  the  world  wrote  many 
other  books,  which  arc  included  in  their  system  of 
sacred  books,  but  arc  not  in  our  hands."  To  which 
he  adds,  "They  say  that  some  of  these  are  found 
in  the  Chaldee  ;  sonic  in  the  Arabic  ;  and  some  in 
the  Greek  language." 

11.  AzARiAii  ascribes  the  book  called,  the  Wis- 
dom OF  Solomon,  to  Philo  ;  and  R.  Gedaliaii  ia 
speaking  of  the  same  book  says,  '<  That  if  Solomon 
ever  wrote  it,  it  must  have  been  in  the  Syriac  lan- 
guage, to  send  it  to  some  of  the  kings  in  the  remo- 
test parts  of  the  East."  ''  But,"  says  he,  ''  Ezra 
put  his  hand  only  to  those  books  which  were  pub- 
lished by  the  prophets,  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  written  in  the  sacred  language  ; 
and  oui-  wise  men  prudently  and  deliberately  re- 
solved, to  sanction  none  but  such  as  were  establish- 
ed and  confirmed  by  him." 

"This  book,"  says  he,  "the  Gentiles  (i.  e. 
Christians)  have  added  to  their  Bible." 

"Their  wise  men,"  says  Buxtorf,  "pronounced 
this  book  to  be  Apocryphal." 

The  book  called  Ecclesiasticus,  said  to  be 
written  by  THE  son  of  Sikacii,  is  expressly  num- 
bered among  Apocryphal  books,  in  the  Talmud. 
"  In  the  book  of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  it  is  forbidden 
to  read." 


48 

Manasseh  Ben  Israel  has  this  observation, 
■^^  Those  things  which  are  alleged  from  a  verse  in 
Ecclesiasticus  are  nothing  to  the  purpose,  because 
that  is  an  Apocryphal  book."  Another  of  their 
writers  says,  "The  book  of  the  son  of  Sirach  is 
added  to  our  twenty-four  sacred  books,  by  the 
Romans."  This  book  also,  they  call  extraneous , 
which  some  of  the  Jews  prohibit  to  be  read.  With 
what  face  then  can  the  Romanists  pretend,  that 
this  book  was  added  to  the  Canon,  not  long  before 
the  time  of  Josephus  ? 

Baruch,  says  one  of  their  learned  men,  "is  re- 
ceived by  Christians"  (i.  e.. Romanists.)  "but  not 
by  us." 

Of  ToBiT,  it  is  said  in  Zemach  David  "  Know 
then  that  this  book  of  Tobias  is  one  of  those  which 
Christians  join  with  the  Hagiographa."  A  little 
afterwards,  it  is  said,  "Know  then  that  Tobit 
which  is  among  us  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  was 
translated  from  Latin  into  Hebrew,  by  Sebas- 
tian Munster."  The  same  writer  aflfirms  of  the 
history  of  Susannah,  "That  it  is  received  by 
Christians,  but  not  by  us." 

The  Jewsjin  the  time  of  Jerome,  entertained  no 
other  opinion  of  these  books,  than  those  who  came 
after  them  ;  for  in  his  Preface  to  Daniel  he  in- 
forms us,  "  That  he  had-  heard  one  of  the  Jewish 
doctors  deriding  the  history  of  Susannah,  who 
said,  '  it  was  invented  by  some  Greek,  he  knew 
not  whom."* 

*  See  the  Thesaurus  Philologicus  of  Hottinger, 


49 

The  same  is  the  opinion  of  the  Jews  respecting 
the  ot Ik  r  hooks,  which  we  call  Apocryphal,  as  is 
manifest  from  all  the  copies  of  the  Hehrew  Bihie, 
extant  ;  for,  undoubtedly,  if  they  l)clieved  that 
an\'  of  these  books  were  Car.onical,  they  would 
give  them  a  place  in  their  sacred  volume.  But 
will  any  ask,  what  is  the  opinion  of  the  Jews  to 
us?  I  answer,  much,  on  this  point.  The  oracles 
of  God  were  C'lmmited  to  them  ;  and  they  pre- 
served them  with  ar  religious  care,  until  the  advent 
of  Messiah.  Christ  never  censures  them  for  adding 
to  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  nor  detracting  from  them. 
Since  their  nation  has  been  in  dispersion,  copies  of 
the  Old  Testament,  in  Hebrew,  have  been  scatter- 
ed all  over  the  world,  so  that  it  was  impossible  to 
produce  a  universal  alieration  in  the  Canon. — But 
it  is  needless  to  argue  this  point,  for  it  is  agreed 
by  all,  that  these  books  never  were  received  by 
the  Jewish  nation. 

3.  The  third  argument  against  the  Canonical  au- 
thority of  tliese  books,  is  derived  from  the  tot^l 
silence  respecting  them,  in  the  New  Testament. 
Thev  are  never  quoted  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
This  fact, however,is  disputed  by  theRomanists,and 
they  even  attempt  to  e'-taiiiish  their  right  ti<  a  pi  ace 
in  the  Canon, from  the  citations,  which  tliey  pretend 
have  been  made  from  tliesc  books  by  the  apostles. 
They  refer  to  Rom.  xi.  and  Heb.  xi  where  they 
allea:e,  that  P..ul  has  ci'ed  passages  from  the  B<H)k 
of  Wisdom.  For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of 
E  2 


50 

the  Lord^  orwh'o  hath  been  his  counsellor  ? — For 
before  his  translation  he  had  this  testimony 
that  he  pleased  God.  But  both  these  passages  are 
taken  directly  from  tlio  Canonical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  The  first  is  nearly  in  the  words  of 
Isaiah  ;  and  the  last  from  the  book  of  Genesis  ; 
their  other  examples  are  as  wide  of  the  mark  as 
these,  and  need  not  be  set  down. 

And  it  has  already  been  shown  that  these  books 
were  included  in  the  volume  quoted,  and  referred 
to,  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  under  the  title  of, 
THE  Scriptures,  and  are  entirely  omitted  by  Jo- 
sephus  in  his  account  of  the  Sacred  books.  It 
would  seem  therefore,  that  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  for  some  time  afterwards,  tiiey  were  utterly 
unknown,  or  wholly  disregarded. 


SECTION"     IV. 


TESTFMOXIKS  OF  THK  CHIUSTIAN  F\TFIERS,  AND 
OFOTIIElt  LKAltNKD  MEN  DOW  N  TO  IIIK  I  I\IE  OF 
THR  COUNCIL  OF  TliKN  I',  UESl'EC  IING  THE  AI'OC- 
UYIMIA. 

The  fourth  argument,  is,  that  these  books  were 
not  received  as  Canonical,  by  the  Christian  Fathers, 
but  were  expressly  declared  to  be  Apocryphal. 

JnsTiN  Martyk  does  not  cite  a  sinsjle  passage, 
in  all  his  writinpjs,  from  any  Apocsyph.d  book. 

The  first  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament which  we  have,  after  the  times  of  the  apos- 
tles, from  any  Cliristian  writer,  is  tliat  of  M.:hto 
bishop  of  Sardis,  before  the  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, which  is  preserved  by  F'iUsebius.  The  frag- 
ment is  as  follows,  "Mr.juiTO  to  his  brother  Onks- 
iMi's,  greeting.  Since  you  have  often  earnestly 
reque>ted  of  ine,  in  consequence  of  your  love  of 
leari(ing,a  colkcfion  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the 
Law,  and  the  Prophets,  and  what  rela»cs  to  the 
Saviour,  and  concerning  our  whole  faitii  ;  and 
since,  moreover,  you  wish  to  obtain  an  accurate 
ktujwlcdge  of  our  ancient  books,  as  it  respects  their 
number,  and  order,  I  have  used  dilia;ence  to  accom- 
plish this,  knowing  your  sincere  affection  towards 
the  faith,  and  your  tarnesl  desire  to  become  ac- 
quainted witti  the  word  :    and  that  striving  after 


52 

eternal  life,  your  love  to  God  induces  vou  to  pre- 
fer these  to  all  other  tliins;s.  Wherefore,  ^oin<^ 
into  the  East,  and  to  the  very  place  where  these 
things  were  published  and  transacted  ;  and  having 
made  diligent  search  after  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  I  now  subjoin,  and  send  you,  the  fol- 
lowing catalogue.  Five  books  of  Moses,  viz.  Gen- 
esis,Exndus,  Leviticus,  Numbers  and  Dput(;rono- 
my.  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  Four  books  of  Kings, 
Two  of  Chronicles,  The  Psalms  of  David,  The 
Proverbs  of  Solomon,  (or)  Wisdom,*  Ecclc^iastes, 
The  Song  of  Songs,  Job,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Twelve 
in  one  book,  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Ezra."t 
I  OsiGEN  also  says,  "  We  should  not  be  ignorant, 
''  that  the  Canonical  books  are  the  same  which  the 
H  brews  delivered  unto  us,  and  are  twenty  two 
in  au  nber,according  to  the  numb..r  of  letters  of  the 
Hebrew  alphabet. '^'  Then  besets  dou  ti,  in  order, 
the  names  of  the  books,  in  Greek  and  Hebrew. 

*  Whether  Melito,  in  this  catalogue,  by  the  woitl  Wis- 
dom, meant  to  designate  a  distinct  book;  or  whether  It 
was  used  as  an  other  name  for  Proverbs,  seems  doubtful. 
Tlie  latter  has  generally  been  understood  to  be  tlie  sense; 
and  this  accords  with  the  understanding  of  the  ancients;  for 
Rutin,  in  iiis  translation  of  this  passage  of  Busebius,rendcrs 
■Tra^oij-iaj  >;  (So(pla  SaLrmonis  Froverbia,  guce  est  sapientia ; 
that  is.  The  Proverbs  of  Solcmon^which  is  Wisdom.  Pineda, 
a  learned  Romanist,  says,  "  The  word  Iflsilom  should  hero 
be  taken  as  explicative  of  the  former,  and  should  be  under- 
stood to  mean,   The  Proverbs." 

t  Euseb.  Hist.  Ecc.  Lib.  v.  c  24. 


53 

Athanasius,  in  his  Synopsis,  says,  ''All  the 
Scriptures  of  us  Christians  are  divinely  inspired; 
neither  are  they  indefinite  in  Iheir  number,  but 
determined,  and  reduced  into  a  Canon.  Those  of 
the  Old  Testament  are.  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviti- 
cus, Numbers,  Joshua,  Jiido;es,  Ruth,  Four  books 
of  Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Job.  The  twelve  prophets, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,    P^zekiel,  Daniel." 

HiLAKV,  who  was  contemporary  with  Athana- 
sius,  and  resided  in  France,  has  numbered  the  Ca- 
nonical books  of  the  Old  Testanient,  in  the  follow- 
ing manner,  "The  five  of  Moses,  the  sixth  of 
Joshua,  the  seventh  of  Jud2;es  including  Ruth,  the 
eighth  of  first  and  second  Kings  ;  the  ninth  of  third 
and  fourth  Kings  ;  the  tenth  of  the  Chronicles,  two 
books  ;  the  eleventh,  Ezra  (which  included  Nehe- 
miah;)  the  twelltli,  tlie  Psalms.  Proverbs,  Eccle- 
siastes, and  the  Son^  of  S  )ngs,  the  thirteenth, 
fourteenth,  and  fifteenth;  the  Twelve  Prophets, the 
sixteenth  ;  then,  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  including 
Lamentations  and  his  Epistle,  Daniel,  Ezekiel, 
Job,  and  Esther,  making  up  the  full  nninber  of 
twenty  two."  And  in  his  Preface,  he  adds,  "That 
these  books  were  thus  numbered  by  our  ancestors, 
and  handed  down  by  tradition    from  them."* 

GuKGOiiY   Nazianzen   exhorts    his   readers   to 
study  the  sacred  books  with  attention,  but  to  avoid 

*  Proleg.  in  Psalmos. 


/ 


54 

such  as  were  Apocryplial ;  and  then  gives  a  list  of 
the  books  of  the  OJfl  Testament,  and  at'cordino:  to 
the  Jewish  nielhod,  makes  the"nuinl)er  two  and 
TWENTY.  He  complains  of  some,  that  min2;led 
the  Apocryphal  books  with  those  that  were  inspir- 
ed "Of  the  truth  of  which  last,"  says  he,  "we 
have  the  most  perfect  per'^uasion,  therefore  it  seem- 
ed good  to  me,  to  enumerate  the  Canonical  books, 
from  the  beginning  :  and  those  which  belong  to 
the  Old  Testament  are  two  and  twenty,  according 
to  the  number  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  as  I  have 
understood."  Then  he  proceeds  to  say,  "Let 
no  one  add  to  these  divine  books,  nor  take  any 
thing  away  from  them.  I  think  it  necessary  to 
ad'i  this,  that  there  are  other  books  besides  those 
which  I  have  enumerated  as  constituting  the  Canon, 
which  however  do  not  appertain  to  it  ;  but  were 
proposed  by  the  early  Fathers,  to  be  read  for  the 
sake  of  the  instruction  which  they  contain. "  Then, 
he   expressly    names,    as   belonging   to   this   class, 

THE  WISDOM  OF    SoLOMON,    THE  WISDOM  OF  SiRACH, 

Esther,   Judith,  and  Tobit.* 

Jerome,  in  his  Ej)isrlp  to  Paulinus,  gives  us  a 
catologue  of  the  bouks  of  the  Old  Testament,  ex- 
actly corresponding  with  that  which  Protestants 
receive.  "  Which,"  says  he,  "  we  believe  agreea- 
bly to  the  tradition  of  our  ancestors,  to  have  been 
inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

*  Epist.  ad  Thcod.  and  Lib.  Carm. 


55 

Epiphanius,  in  his  book  conccrninjr  Weiochts 
and  Measures,  distributes  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  into  four  divisions,  of  five  each.  "The' 
first  of  which  contains  the  Law;  next,  five  Poetical 
books,  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song 
of  Songs  ;  in  the  third  division,  he  places  Joshua, 
Judges  including  Ruth,  First  and  Second  Chroni- 
cles, Four  books  of  Kings.  The  last  dve,  the 
twelve  prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiol,  Da- 
niel. Then  there  remain  two,  Ezra  and  Esther," 
Thus  he  makes  up  the  nnml)cr  twknty-two. 

Cykil  of  Jerusalem,  in  his  Catechism,  exhorts  his  / 
catechumen  diligently  to  learn  from  ti  e  church,  what 
books  appertain  to  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and 
he  says,  "Read  nothing  which  is  Apocryphal.  Read 
the  Scriptures,  namely,  the  twenty-two  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  which  were  translated  by  the 
Seventy-two  interpreters. "  And  in  another  place, 
"Meditate,  as  was  said,  in  the  twenty  two  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  if  you  wish  it,  I  will 
give  you  their  names."  Here  follows  a  catalogue, 
agreeing  with  those  already  given,  except  that  he 
adds  Baruch  to  the  list.  When  Baruch  is  men- 
tioned as  making  one  book  with  Jeremiah,  as  is 
done  by  some  of  the  Fathers,  it  is  most  reasona- 
ble to  understand  those  parts  of  Jeremiah,  in  the 
writing  of  which,  Baruch  was  concerned,  as 
particularly  the  lii.  chapter;  for,  if  we  under- 
stand them  as  referring  to  the  separate  book, 
now  called  Baruch,   the  number,   which  they  are 


5e. 

so  careful  to  "preserve,  will  be 'exceeded.  This 
Apocryphal  Baruch  never  existed  in  the  Hebrew, 
and  is  never  mentioned  separately,  by  any  ancient 
author,  as  Bellarmine  confesses.  This  book  was 
originally  written  in  Greek,  but  our  present  copies 
differ  exceedingly  from  the    Old  Latin  translation. 

The  cou>xil  of  Laodicka  forbad  the  reading 
of  any  books  in  the  churches,  but  such  as  were  Ca- 
nonical ;  and  that  the  people  might  know  what 
these  were,  a  catalogue  was  given,  answering  to 
the  Canon  which  we  now  receive. 

Origen  barely  mentions  the  Maccabees.  Atha- 
NAsius  takes  no  notice  of  these  books.  Etsebius, 
in  his  Chronicon,  speaks  of  the  History  of  the  Mac- 
cabees, and  adds,  "These  books  are  not  received 
as  divine  Scriplures" 

Philastkius,  an  Italian  bishop,  who  lived  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  fouith  Century,  in  a  work  on 
Heresy,  says  '"It  was  determined  by  the  apostles 
and  their  successors,  that  nothing  should  be  read  in 
theCalholic  church, but  the  Law. Prohets, Evange- 
lists, &c." — And  he  complains  of  certain  Heretics, 
"That  they  used  the  book  of  Wisdom, by  THi.  son 
or  SiRACH,  who  lived  long  after  Solomon." 

Chrysostom,  a  man  who  excelled  in  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Scriptures,  declares,  "That  all  the 
divine  books  of  the  Old  Testameni  were  ori<j:;i!ial- 
ly  written  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  and  that  no  other 
books  were  received."* 

*  Horn.  4.  In  Gen. 


57 

]iiif  Jerome,  already  mentioned,  who  Imd  dili- 
g;entiy  studied  the  Hibrcw  ScripUircs,  by  the  .tid 
of  tlie  brst  Jewish  leacliers,  entitis  into  tliis  subjt  ct 
more  fnlly  and  accurately  than  any  of  the  rest  of 
the  Fathers.  In  lii^  2;encral  Pix-face  to  ids  version  of 
the  Scriptures, lie  mentions  the  books  which  he  had 
translated  out  of  Hebrew  into  Lniin  ;  "All  besides 
them,"  sa3s  lie,  "must  be  placed  amona;  the  Apoc- 
ryphal.     Tiierefore,  VN'isdom,  which  is  aserilxnl  to 

Solomon,    THK   BOOK  OF  JfcSUS  THt;   SON  OF    SiRACH, 

JuDrrn,  ToBiT,  and  1'asiok,  are  not  in  the  Canon. 
I  have  found  the  lirst  bnuk  of.  JVIaccabees  in  He- 
brew (Chaldec);  the  second  in  Greek,  and  ;is  the 
style  sliows,  ii  must  have  been  composed  in  ihat  lan- 
guage." And  in  his  Preface  to  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
(always  reckoned  one  l)0(di  by  the  Jews,)  he  says, 
**  Let  no  one  bo  dislurbed,  mat  1  have  edited  but 
one  book  nniler  this  name  ;  nor  let  any  one  j)lease 
himself  with  the  dreams  contained  in  lb  third  and 
foui'lh  Apociyphal  bo(dis,  ascribed  to  this  author; 
for  with  the  Hebrews,  Kzra  and  Nehemiali  make 
but  one  book  ;  and  those  things  not  contained  in 
this  are  to  be  lejected,  as  not  belonging  to  the  Ca- 
non." And  in  his  preface  to  thebioks  of  Solomon, 
bespeaks  "of  Wisdom,  and  Ecclesiaslicus  ;  the 
former  of  which"  he  says,  "he  found  in  Hebrew, 
(Chaldee)  but  not  the  latter,  which  is  never  found 
among  the  Hebrews,  but  the  style  strongly  savours 
o  fllie  Grecian  eloquence."  He  then  adds,  "  As 
the  chujcii  reads  the  books   of  Judith,  Tubil,  and 


the  Maccabees,  but  does  not  receive  them  among 
the  Canonical  Scriptures,  so  also,  she  may  read 
these  two  books  for  the  edification  of  the  common 
people,  but  not  as  authority  to  confirm  any  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  church." 

Again,  in  his  Preface  to  Jeremiah,  he  says, 
**The  book  ofBaruch,  the  scribe  of  Jeremiah,  is 
not  read  in  Hebrew,  nor  esteemed  Canonical, 
therefore,  I  have  passed  it  over."  And  in  his  Pre- 
face to  Daniel,  "  This  book  among  the  Hebrews  has 
neither  the  history  of  Susanna,  nor  the  song 
OF  the  three  Children,  nor  the  eabees  of 
Bel  and  the  Dragon,  which  we  have  retained, 
lest  we  should  appear  to  the  unskilful  to  have  cur- 
tailed a  large  part  of  the  Sacred  Volume." 

In  the  Preface  to  Tobit,  he  says,  "The  He- 
brews cutoff  the  book  of  Tobit  from  the  catalogue 
of  Divine  Scriptures." 

And  in  his  Preface  to  Judith,  ''Among  the  He- 
brews, Judith  is  placed  among  the  Hiagiographa 
which  are  not  of  authority  to  determine  controver- 
sies." 

RuFiN,  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  observes, 
<'That  there  were  some  books,  which  were  not 
called  Canonical,  but  received  b}'  our  ancestors;  as 
the  Wisdi.  m  of  Solomon,  and  another  Wisdom  of 
the  Son  of  Sirach;  of  the  same  order ,  are  the  books 
of  Tobit,  Judith,  and  the  Maccabees  " 

Grkgobt  the  First,  speaking  of  the  testimony 
in  the  Maccabees  respectiug  the  death  of  EleazeVf 


59 


says,  "  Concerning;  which  tiling  we  do  not  act  in- 
onlinately,  althous;h  \vc  lirin^;  onr  testimony  from 
a  hook,  whicli  is  not  Canonical." 

Augustine,  is  the  only  one  among  the  Fathers, 
who  liv^d  within  four  hundred  years  after  the 
apostles,  \/l^o  seems  to  favour  the  introduction  of 
these  six  disputed  books,  into  the  Canon.  In  his 
work  On  Christian  Df)ctrine,  he  gives  a  list  of 
the  books  ofthe  Old  Testamcnt,amon2;  which  he  in- 
serts, Tobit,.  Judith,  the  two  books  of  Maccabees, 
two  of  Esdras,  Wisdom,  and  Ecclesiasticus. 
These  two,  last  mentioned,  he  says,  are  called  So- 
lomon's, on  account  of  their  resemblance  to  his 
writings  ;  although  it  is  known,  that  one  of  them 
was  composed  by  the  Son  of  Sirach  :  which  de- 
serves to  be  received  among  the  prophetical 
books."  But  this  opinion  he  retracted  after- 
wards. * 

Augustine  was  accustomed  to  the  Greek  and 
Latin  Bibles,  in  which  those  books  had  been 
introduced,  and  we  must  suppose,  unless  we 
would  make  him  contradict  himself,  that  he  meant 
in  this  place,  merely  to  enumerate  the  books  then 
contained  in  the  Sacred  volume;  for  in  many 
other  places,  he  clearly  shews,  tlmt  he  enter- 
tained the  same  opinion  ofthe  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  as  the  other  Fathers. 

In  his  celebrated  work,  Op  the  citv  of  God, 
he  expresses  this  opinion  most  explicitly,  <<  In  that 
*  Sec  ills  Retractions. 


60 

whole  period,  after  the  return  from  the  Babylo- 
nish captivity,  after  Malachi,  Haj2;2;ai,  Zachriah, 
and  Ezra,  Ihc}'  had  no  prophets,  even  until  the 
time  of  the  advent  of  our  Saviour.  As  our  L.ord 
says.  The  Lino  and  the  Prophets  loej'e  until 
John.  And  ^ven  the  reprobate  Jews  hold  that 
Hag_2;ai,  Zachariah,  Ezra,  and  Maiaciii,  were  the 
last  books  received  into  Cononical  authority." 

In  lii.s  commentary  on  the  xl.  Psalm,  he  says, 
"  If  any  adversary  should  say,  you  have  foraged 
these  prophecies  ;  let  the  Jewish  books  be  produ- 
ced— The  Jews  are  our  librarians.'^  And  on  the 
Ivi.  Psalm,  "  When  we  wish  to  prove  to  the  Pa- 
gans, that  Christ  was  predicted,  we  appeal  to  writ- 
ings in  possesion  of  the  Jews  j — they  have  all  these 
Scripures." 

And  aa;ain,  in  the  work  first  cited,  The  Israel- 
itish  nation,  to  whom  the  oracles  of  God  were  in- 
trusted never  confounded  false  prophecies  with 
the  true,  but  all  these  writings  are  harmonious'. " 
Then,  in  another  work,  in  speaking  of  the  books 
of  the  Maccabees,  he  says,  "  This  writing,  the 
Jews  never  received,  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  to  which  the 
Lord  gave  testimony,  as  by  his  own  witnesses." 
And  frequentl}'  in  his  works,  he  confines  the  Ca- 
nonical hooks,  to  those  properly  included  in  this 
threefold  division.  He  also  repeatedly  declares, 
that  the  Cano'dcal  scriptures  which  are  of  the  most 
eminent   authority,   are  the   books  committed   to 


61 

the  Jews.  But  in  the  eip;liteenth  book  of  The 
CITY  OP  God, speaking  of  Judith,  he  says,"  Those 
things  whicii  are  written  in  this  book,  it  is  said 
the  Jews  have  never  received  into  the  Canon  of 
Scripture."  And  in  the  seventeenth  book  of  the 
same  work,  "There  are  three  books  of  Solomon, 
which  have  been  received  into  Canonical  author- 
ity. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and  Canticles  ;  the  other 
•  two,  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus,  have  been  called 
by  his  name,  through  a  custom  which  prevailed, 
on  account  of  their  similitude  to  his  writings  ;  but 
the  more  learned  are  certain  that  they  are  not  his  ; 
and  they  cannot  be  brouglit  forward  with  much 
contidence  for  the  conviction  of  gainsayers. " 

He  allows  that  the  book  of  Wisdom  may  be  read 
to  the  people,  and  ought  to  be  preferred  to  all 
other  tracts  ;  but  he  Joes  not  insist,  that  tlie  testi- 
monies taken  from  it  are  decisive. 

And  respecting  Kcclksiasticus,  he  says,  when 
speaking  of  Samuel's  prophesying  after  his  d  -ath, 
<♦  But  if  this  book  is  objected  to,  because  it  is  not 
found  in  tlie  Canon  of  the  Jews,"  &c. 

His  rejection  of  the  books  of  Maccabees  from 
the  Canon  is  repeated  and  explicit.  "The  calcula- 
tion of  the  times  after  the  restoring  of  tne  temjile 
is  not  found  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  wliicli  are 
called  Canonical,  but  in  certain  other Oooks,  among 
which  are  the  two  books  of  M  iccabees. —  The 
Jews  do  not  receive  (he  Maccabees,  as  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets." 

D  2 


62 

It  may  be  admitted,  however,  that  Augustine 
entertained  tt)0  higli  an  opinion  of  tiiese  Apocry- 
phal books,  but  it  is  certain,  that  he  did  not  put 
them  on  a  level  with  the  genuine  Canonical  books. 

He  mentions  a  custom  which  prevailed  in  his 
time,  from  which  it  appears,  that  although  the 
Apocryphal  books  were  read  in  some  of  the  church- 
es, they  were  not  read  as  Holy  Scripture,  nor  put 
on  a  level  with  the  Canonical  books  ;  tor  he  in-, 
forms  us,  that  they  were  not  permitted  to  be  read 
from  the  same  desk  as  the  Canonical  Scriptures, 
but  Irom   a   lower  place  in  the  church. 

Innocent  the  first,  who  lived  about  the  same 
time,  is  also  adduced  as  a  witness,  to  prove,  that 
these  disputed  books  were  tiien  received  into 
the  Canon.  But  the  Epistle  which  contains  his 
catalogue  is  extremely  suspicious.  No  mention  is 
made  of  this  Epistle  by  any  writer  for  three  hun- 
dred years  after  the  deatli  of  Innocent.  But  it  is 
no  how  necessary  to  our  argument,  to  deny, 
that  in  the  end  of  the  fourth,  and  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century,  some  individuals,  and  perhaps  some 
councils,  received  these  books  as  Canonical  :  yet 
thore  is  strong  evidence  that  this  was  not  the 
opinion  of  the  universal  churcli  ;  for  in  the  coun- 
cil of  Chalctdon,  which  is  reckoned  to  be  oecu- 
menical, the  Canons  of  the  coui.cil  uf  Laodicea 
"whicli  contain  a  cataloguiJ  of  the  genuine  books  of 
>  the  Old  Testament,  are  adopted.     And  it  lias  been 


shewn  already,  that  these    Apocryphal  Iwoks  were 
exckuletl  from  that  catalogue. 

But  it  can  be  proved,  that  even  until  the  time  of 
the  mcetingof  the  council  of  Trent,  by  which  these 
books  were  solemnly  Cdnoaized,  the  most  learn- 
ed and  judicious  of.  the  Popish  writers,  adhere  to 
the  opinions  of  Jekomk  and  the  ancients  ;  or  at 
least,  make  a  marked  ilistinction  between  these  dis- 
puted books,  and  those  which  are  acknowledged  to 
be  Canonical  by  all.  A  few  testimonies  fromdis- 
tinguislucl  writers,  from  the  commencement  of  the 
sixin  century,  down  to  the  era  of  the  Reformation, 
shall  now  be  given. 

It  deserves  to  be  particularly  observed,  here,  that 
in  one  of  the  laws  of  the  Emperoi  Justinian,  con- 
cerning Ecclesiastical  matters,  it  was  enacted, 
"Tiiat  the  Canons  of  the  first  lour  general  councils 
should  be  received,  and  have  the  force  of  laws. " 

Anastasius,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  in  a  work 
on  the  Creation,  makes  "  The  number  of  books 
which  God  hath  appointed  for  his  Old  Testament" 
to  be  no  more  than  twenty  two  ;  although  he  speaks 
in  very  liigli  terms  of  Wisdom  and  Ecclesias- 
ticus. 

Leontius,  a  learned  and  accurate  writer,  in  his 
book  agahist  tlie  Skcts,  acknowledges  no  other 
Canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  those 
which  llie  Hebrews  received  ;  namely, Twelve  His- 
torical books.  Five   Prophetical,  Four  ot    Doctrine 

and  lubli  uciion,  and  One  of  Psalms  3  making  the 


64 

number  twenty  two,  as  usual  ;    and  he  makes  not 
the  least  menlion  of  any  others. 

Gregory,  who  lived  at  the  beajinning  of  the 
seventh  century,  in  his  book  of  Morals,  makes  an 
apology  for  alleging  a  passage  from  the  Maccabees, 
and  says,  "Though  it  be  not  taken  from  the  Ca- 
nonical Scri|)ture,  yet  it  is  cited  from  a  book  which 
was  published  for  the  edification  of  the  church." 

Isidore,  bishop  of  Seville,  divides  the  Canoni- 
cal books  of  the  Old  Testament  into  'hree  orders, 
the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa  ;  and 
afterwards  adds  :  "  That  there  is  a  fourth  order  of 
books,  which  are  not  in  the  Hebrew  Canon  of  the 
Old  Testament."  Here  he  names  these  books, 
and  says,  "Though  the  Jaws  rejected  them  as 
Apocryphal,  the  church  has  received  them  among 
the  Canonical  Scriptures." 

John  Daviasckne,  a  Syrian  Presbyter,who  lived 
early  in  tiie  eighth  century,  adheres  to  the  Hebrew 
Canon  of  tne  Old  Testament,  numbering  only  two 
and  twenty  books.  Of  Maccabees,  Judith,  and  To- 
bit, hesiys  not  one  word  ;  but  he  speaks  "Of  Wis- 
dom and  Ecclesiasticus,  as  elegant  and  virtuous 
writings,  yet  not  to  be  numbered  among  the  Ca- 
nonical books  ot  Scripture,  being  never  laid  up  in 
the  ark  of  the  Covenant." 

Venehable  Bkde  follows  the  ancient  method  of 
dividing  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  into  three 
classes  ;  but  he  remarkably  distinguishes  the  Mac- 
cabees from  the  Canonical  bouks,  b_>  classing  them 


65 

with  the  \vritini!;s  of  Jose|)hiH,    anil  .T'iliii-5  Ihc  Af- 
ricjii. 

Alcitin,  the  disciple  of  ficde,  snys,  ''.Thut  tiie 
hock  of  the  son  of  Sinich  w.is  re|jiUc(l  an  A|jocry- 
phal  ami  dubious  SLM-iptun;. " 

RiTPEiJT,  a  lenrned  man  of  the  twelfth  ceiiluiy, 
expressly  rejects  the  hook  of  Wisiloni,  from  i.ie 
Canon. 

Peter  ATauritius,  after  sjivino;  a  catalogue  of 
the  autheiiiic  Sci  iptures  of  the  Old  rpsiainent,adds 
the  six  disputed  hooks,  and  says,  "They  are  useful 
and  commendal)le  in  the.  church,  but  are  not  to  be 
placed  in  the  sain.'  dignity  with  tiie  rest." 

Hugo  de  S.  Victoke,  a  Saxon  by  hirtJi,  but 
who  resided  at  Pans,  gives  a  catalogue  of  the  books 
of  the  Ohl  Testament,  whicb  includes  no  otners 
but  the  two  and  iwetily  received  from  the  J.ws; 
and  of  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Tobit,  and  Judith, 
hesa\s,  '''Phey«are  used  in  the  church,  but  not 
written  in  the  Cinon.'' 

RiCH.AKD  DE  S.VicTORE,  also  of  the  twelfth  centu- 
ry, in  his  Books  of  Collections,  explicitly  di'clares, 
''Tlial  there  arc  but  twenty  two  books  in  the  Canon; 
and  thai  Wisdom  Ecclesiasticus,  Tobit,  Jndilh,  and 
the  Maccabees  are  not  esteemed  Canonical,  al- 
though they  are  rearl  in  the  churches  " 

Pt 'rER  LoMRAKU,  in  his  Scholastic  History, 
enumerates  the  books  of  liu'  Old  Testament,  thus; 
Fi\e  books  of  M  ise>,  eight  of  the  prophets,  and 
nine  of  the  Hagiographa,  whicii  leaves  no  room 


66 

for  these  six  disputed  books  ;  but  in  his  Preface  to 
Tobit,  he  sa^'s  expressly,  "That  it  is  in  no  order 
of  the  Canon  ;"  and  of  Judith,  'Hhat  Jerome,  and 
the  Hebrews,  place  it  in  the  Apocrypha. "  More- 
over, he  calls  the  story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  a 
fable  ;  and  says,  that  the  History  of  Susanna,  is 
not  as  true  as  it  should  be. 

In  tills  century,  also,  lived  John  op  Salisbury, 
an  Englishman,  a  man  higlily  respected,  in  his 
time.  In  o.ie  of  his  Epistles,  he  treats  this  subject 
at  large,  and  piofesses  to  follow  Jerome,  and  un- 
doubtedly to  believe,  that  th^re  are  but  twenty 
twi:  books  in  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  all 
which  he  names  in  order,and  adds,  "That  neither 
the  buok  of  Wisdom,  nor  Ecclesiasticus,  nor  Ju- 
dith, nor  Tobit,  nor  the  Paslor,  nor  the  Maccabees, 
are  esteemed  Canonical." 

In  the  thirteenth  century,  the  opinion  of  the 
learned  was  the  same,  as  we  may  see,  by  the  Oii- 
Di>'ARY  Gloss  on  the  Bible,  in  the  composition 
of  which,  many  persons  were  concerned,  and 
which  was  highly  approved  by  all  the  doctors 
and  pastors  in  the  Western  churches.  In  the 
Pieface  to  this  Gloss,  they  are  reproached  with 
ignorance  who  hold  all  the  books  put  into  the 
one  volume  of  Scripture,  in  equal  veneration. 
The  difference  between  these  books  is  asserted  to 
be  as  great  as  bet\\een  certain,  and  doubtful 
works.  The  Canonical  books  are  declared,  "To 
have  been  written  by  the   inspiration  of  the  Holy 


G7 

Ghost;  but  who  were  the  authorsof  the  ofhers, 
is  unknown."  Then  it  is  declared:  "Thai  ihe 
church  permitteth  the  reading;  of  the  Apocryphal 
books,  for  devotion  and  instiuction,  but  not  for 
authority  to  decide  matters  of  controversy  in  faith. 
And  that  there  are  no  more  tlian  twenty  two 
Canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  a\u\  all 
besides  are  Apocryphal."  Tlius  we  have 
the  common  judgment  of  the  church,  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
decree  of  the  council  of  Trent,  in  the  sixteenth. 
But  this  is  not  all,  for  when  the  writers  of  this 
Gloss  come  to  the  Apocryphal  books,  they  prefix  a 
caution,  as:  "Here  begins  the  book  of  Tobit, 
which  is  not  in  the  Canon  ;" — "Here  begins  the 
book  of  Judith,  which  is  not  in  the  Canon,"  and  so 
of  every  one  of  them:  and  to  confirm  their  opinion 
they  appeal  to  the  Fathers. 

Hugo,  the  cardinal,  who  lived  in  this  cen- 
tury, wrote  commentaries,  on  all  the  Scrip- 
tures, which  were  universally  esteemed  ;  in 
these,  he  constantly  keeps  up  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  Canonical,  and  Ecclesiastical  books  ; 
and  he  explicitly  declares  thafKcclesiasticus,  Wis- 
dom, Judith,  Tobit,  and  the  Maccabees,  are  Apoc- 
ryphal ; — dubious; — not  Canonical  ; — not  received 
by  the  church  for  proving  any  mailers  of  faith,  but 
for  information  of  manners." 

Thomas  Aquinas,  also,  the  most  famous  of  the 
schoolmen,  makes    the    same  distinciion   between 


68 

these  classes  of  bonks.  He  maintains,  that  the 
bo<.k  of  Wisdom  was  not  helci  io  i)e  a  part  of  the 
Canon,  and  ascribes  it  to  Philo.  The  story  of  Bel 
and  the  Diag;on,  he  calls  a  fable;  and  he  siiows 
clearly  enongh,  that  he  did  not  believe  that  Eccle- 
siasticus  was  of  Canonical  authority. 

In  the  fourteenth  century,  no  man  acquired  so 
extensive  a  reputation,  for  his  commentaries  on 
the  Bible  as,  Nicholas  I^yra,  a  converted  Jew, 
In  his  Preface  to  the  book  of  Tobit,  he  says,  '•  That 
bavins;  commented  on  all  the  Canonical  books, 
from  the  beginnlna;  of  Genesis,  to  tJie  end  of  Re- 
velation, his  intention  now  was,  to  write  on  those 
books  which  are  not  Canonical."  Here  he  enu- 
merates, Wisdom,  Ecclesiasiicus,  Judith,  Tobit, 
and  the  Maccabees,  and  then  adds,  "The  Canon- 
ical books  are  not  only  before  tiiese  in  lime,  but 
indignity  ami  authority" — And  ajrain,  "  I'hese 
are  not  in  the  Canon,  but  received  by  ihc  church 
to  be  read  foi"  instruction  in  manners,  not  to  he  used 
for  deciding  controversies  respecting;  Ibe  faitli  ; 
whereas  the  others  are  of  such  authority,  that  what- 
ever tlicy  contain  is  to  be  lield  as  undoubted  truth;" 

The  Englishntan,  William  Occam,  of  Oxford, 
accounted  the  most  learned  doctor  of  his  age,  in 
his  Dialogues,  acknowledges,  "That,  that  honour 
is  due  only  to  the  divir  e  writers  of  Scripture,  tiiat 
we  should  esteem  them  free  from  all  trror." 
Moreover  in  Ins  Prologues,  he  fully  assents  to  the 
opinion  of  Jerome  and  Gregory,  "That  neither  Ju- 


69 

dith,  nor  Tohit,  nor  the  Maccabees,  nor  Wisdom, 
nor  EcclesiasUcus,  are  to  be  rceived  into  the  same 
place  of  honour,  as  the  inspired  books  ;  for,"  says 
he,  "The  church  doth  not  number  them  among 
the  Canonical  Scriptures." 

In  the  fifteenth  centurj^  Thomas  Anglicus, 
sometimes  called  the  angelical  doctor^  on  account  / 
of  his  excellent  judgment,  numbers  twenty  four 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  if  Ruth  be  reckoned 
separately  from  Judges,  and  Lamentations  from 
Jeremiah. 

Paul  Burgensis,  a  Spanish  Jew,  who,  after  his 
conversion  to  Christianity,  on  account  of  his  supe-  ' 
rior  knowledge  and  piety,  was  advanced  to  be  bishop 
of  Burgos,  wrote  Notes  on  the  Bible,  in  which  he 
retains  the  same  distinction  of  books,  which  has 
been  so  often  mentioned. 

The  Romanists  have  at  last,  as  they  suppose, 
found  an  authority  for  these  disputed  books,  in 
THE  COUNCIL  OF  FLORENCE  ;  from  the  Acts  of 
which,  they  produce  a  decree,  in  which  the  Six 
disputed  books  are  named,  and  expressly  said 
to  be  written  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

If  this  Canon  were  genuine,  the  authority  of  a 
council  sitting  in  such  circumstances,  as  attended 
the  meetingof  this,  would  have  very  little  weight  ; 
but  Dr.  Cosins  has  shewn,  that  in  the  large  copies 
of  the  Acts  of  this  council,  no  such  decree  can  be 
found  ;  and  that  it  has  been  foisted  into  the  abridg- 


70 

men*-,  by  some  impostor,  who  omitted  something 
else,  to  make  room  for  it ;  and  thus  preserved  the 
number  of  Canons  unchanged,  while  the  subsiance 
of  them  was  altered. 

Alphonso  Tostatus,  bishop  of  Avila,  who, 
on  account  of  his  extraordinary  learning,  was 
called  the  wonder  of  the  world,  has  given  a  clear 
and  decisive  testimony  on  tliis  subject.  This 
learned  man  declares,  "  That  these  controverted 
books  were  not  Canonical,  and  that  the  church  con- 
demned no  man  for  disobedience,  who  did  not  re- 
ceive them  as  the  other  Scriptures  ;  because  they 
were  of  uncertain  origin  ;  and  it  is  not  known 
that  they  were  written  by  inspiration.  And 
again,  *'  because  the  cliurch  is  uncertain,  whether 
heretics  have  not  added  to  them."  This  opinion  he 
repeats  in  several  parts  of  his  works. 

Cardinal  Ximenes,  the  celebrated  editor  of 
the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  in  the  preface  to  that 
work,  admonishes  the  reader,  that  Judith,  Tobit, 
Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Maccabees,  with  the  Ad- 
ditions to  Esther  and  Daniel,  which  are  found  in 
the  Greek,  are  not  Canonical  Scripture. 

John  Picus,  the  learned  count  of  Mirandula, 
adhered  firmly  to  the  opinion  of  Jerome  and  the 
other  Fathers,  on  the  subject  of  the  Canon. 

Faber  Staptjlensis,  a  famous  doctor  of  Pa- 
ris, acknowledges  that  these  books  are  not  in  the 
Canon. 

LuDovicus  VivEs,  one  of  the  most  learned  men 


71 

of  liis  agn,  in  his  commentaries  on  AugutIne's 
CiTV  OF  God,  rejects  the  third  and  fuurth  books 
of  Ebdras,  and  also  the  History  of  Susa;»nah,  and 
TJel,  as  Apocryphal.  He  speaks  also  in  such  a  man* 
ner  of  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticns  as  to  shew,  thai 
he  did  not  est:'em  them  Canouic:il  ;  for,  he  makes 
Philo  to  be  tiie  author  oF  the  former,  and  4:he  Son 
of  Sirach  of  the  latter,  who  lived  in  the  time  of 
Ptolemy,  about  an  hundred  years  after  the  last  of 
the  Prophets  ;  and  of  the  Maccabees,  he  doubts, 
whether  Joscphus  was  the  author  or  not ;  by 
which,  he  sufliciently  siiews,that  he  did  not  believe, 
that  they    were  written  by  inspiration. 

But  there  was  no  man  in  this  a^e  who  obtained 
so  hi2;h  a  reputation  for  learning  and  critical  skill, 
as  Erasmus.  In  his  exposition  of  the  Apostle's 
Creed  and  the  Decalogue,  he  discusses  this  question 
respecting  the  Canmical  books;  and  after  enumerat- 
ing the  usual  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  he 
says,  "The  ancient  Fathers  admitted  no  more;" 
but  of  the  other  books,  afterwards  received  into 
Ecclesiastical  use,  (naming  the  whole  which  vve 
esteem  Apocryphal,)  "it  is  uncertain  what  au- 
thority should  be  allowed  to  them  ;  but  the  Canon- 
ical Scriptures  are  such, as  without  controversy, are 
believed  to  have  been  written  by  the  inspiration 
of  God."  And  in  his  Scholia  on  Jerome's  Preface 
to  Daniel,  416  expresses  his  wonder,  tliat  sucli  sto- 
ries as  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  should  be  publicly  read 
in  the  churches.      In  his  address  to  students  of  the 


72 

Scriptures,  he  admonishes  them  to  consider  well, 
"  That  the  church  never  intended  to  give  the  same 
authority  to  Tobit,  Judith,  and  Wisdom,  which  is 
given  to  the  Five  Books  of  Moses,  or  the  Four 
Evangelists." 

The  last  testimony  which  we  shall  adduce,  to 
shew,  that  these  books  were  not  universally,  nor 
commonly  received,  until  the  very  time  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  is  that  of  Cardinal  Cajetaw, 
the  oracle  of  the  church  of  Rome.  In  his  com- 
mentaries on  the  Bible,  he  gives  us  this,  as  the 
rule  of  the  church.  ^'  That  those  books  which 
were  Canonical  with  Jerome, should  be  so  with  us,- 
and  that  those  which  were  not  received  as  Canon- 
ical by  him,  should  be  considered  as  excluded  by 
us."  And  he  says,  "The Church  is  much  indebt- 
ed to  this  Father  for  distinguishing  between  the 
books  which  are  Canonical-,  and  those  which  are 
not,  for  thus  he  has  freed  us  from  the  reproach  of 
the  Hebrews,  who  otherwise  might  say,  that  we 
had  framed  a  new  Canon  for  ourselves."  For  this 
reason,  he  would  write  no  commentaries  on  these 
Apocryphal  books,  for,  says  he,  "Judith,  Tobit, 
Maccabees, Wisdom,  and  the  Additions  to  Esther, 
are  all  excluded  from  the  Canon,  as  insufficient  to 
prove  any  matter  of  faith,  though  they  may  be 
read  for  the  edifying  of  the  people." 

From  the  copious  citations  of  testimonies  which 
we  have  given,  it  is  evident,  that  the  books  in  dis- 
pute, are  Apocryphal,  and  have  no  right  to  a  place 


73 

in  the  Canon  ;  and  that  the  council  of  Trent  acted 
unwisely,  in  decrcein^^,vvith  an  anathema  annexed, 
that  they  should  be  received  as  divine.    Surely  no 
council  can  make  that  an  inspired  hook,  which  was 
not  written  by  inspiration.      Certainly  these  books 
did  not  belong  to  the  Canon  while  the  apostles  li- 
ved, for  they   were    unknown    both    to   Jews   and 
Christians.    Sixtus  Sinensis,  a  distinguished  Ro- 
manist, acknowledges,  that  it  was  long  after    the 
time    of  the   apostles,   that    these  writings  came 
to  the   knowledge  of  the  whole  Christian   church. 
But  while  this  is  conceded,    it  does   not  terminate 
ihe  controversy,  for   among  the  many  extraordina- 
ry claims  of  the  Romanist  church,  one  of  the  most 
extraordinary  is,  the  authority  to  add  to  the  Canon 
of  Holy  Sciipture.      It  has   been  made  sufficiently 
manifest,  that  these  Apocryphal  hooks  were  not  in- 
cluded in  thcCanonduring  the  first  three  centuries; 
and  can  it  be  doubted  whether  the  Canon  was  ful- 
ly constituted  before  the  fourth  century  ?     To  sup- 
pose, that  the  Pope,  or  a  Council,  can  make  wiiat 
books  tiiey   please  Canonical,   is  too   absurd  to  de- 
serve a  moment's  consideration.    If,upon  this  prin- 
ciple they  could  render  Tobit  and  Juditli  Canoni- 
cal, upon  the   same,   tliey   might  introduce  Hero- 
dotusy  Livy,  or  even  the  Koran  itself. 


G  '2 


SECTIOIT    V. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  THAT  THESE  BOOKS  ARE  NOf 
CANONICAL— THE  WRITERS  NOT  PROPHEl'S,  AND 
DO  NOT  CLAIM  TO  BE  INSPIRED. 

I  come  now  to  the  fifth  argument  to  disprove 
the  Canonical  authority  of  these  books,  which  i& 
derived  from  internal  evidence.  Books  which 
contain  manifest  falsehoods  ;  or  which  abound  in 
silly  and  ridiculous  stories;  or  contradict  the  plain 
and  uniform  doctrine  of  acknowledged  Scripture, 
cannot  be  Canonical.  Now  I  will  endeavour  to 
.show,  that  the  books  in  dispute,  are  all,  or  most 
afthem,  condemned  by  this  rule. 

In  the  book  of  Tobit,  an  angel  of  God  is 
made  to  tell  a  palpable  falsehood,  /  am  Jiza- 
rias,  the  sonof  Ananias  the  great,  and  of  thy 
bretheren.*  By  which  Tobit  was  completely  de- 
ceived, for  he  says,  Thou  art  of  an  honest  and 
good  stock.  Now  in  chapter  xii,  this  same  angel  de- 
clares, /  am  Raphael,  one  of  the  seven  Holy  An- 
gels,which  present  the  prayers  of  the  saints,  and 
go  in  and  out  before  the  glory  of  the  Holy  One. 

Judith  is  represented  as  speaking  scarcely  any 
thing  but  falsehood  to  Holofornes  ;  but  what  is 
most  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  piety  given 

»=  Tobit  V.  12. 


75 

her,  is,  that  she  is  made  to  pray  to  the  God  of 
Truth,  in  the  following  words,  Smite  by  the  de» 
ceit  of  my  lips,  the  servant  with  the  prince  and 
the  prince  with  the  servant  :  v/ho  does  not  per- 
ceive, at  once,  the  impiety  of  this  prayer  ?  It  is  a 
petition,  that  He  who  holds  in  utter  detestation  all 
falseliood,  should  give  efficacy  to  premeditated  de- 
ceit. 

This  woman,  so  celehrated  for  her  piefy,  is  also 
made  to  speak  with  commendation  of  the  conduct 
of  Simeon,  in  tire  cruel  slaughter  of  the  Shechemi- 
tes;  an  act,  against  which  God,  in  the  Scriptures, 
has  expressed  his  high  displeasure.  In  the  second 
hook  of  Maccabees,  Razis,  an  Elder  of  Jerusalem, 
is  spoken  of  with  higli  commendation,  for  destroy- 
ing his  own  life  rather  than  fall  into  the  hands  of 
his  enemies  ;  but  certainly  suicide  is  not,  in  any 
Oase,  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God. 

The  author  of  the  l)ook  of  Wisdom,  speaks  in  the 
name  of  Solomon,  and  talks  about  being  appointed 
to  build  a  temple  in  the  holy  mountain  ;  whereas 
it  has  been  proved  by  Jerome,  that  this  book  is 
falsely  ascribed  to  Solomon. 

In  the  book  of  Tobif,  we  have  this  story  ;  ^jlnd 
(IS  they  ivent  on  their  journey  they  came  to  the 
river  Tigris,  and  they  lodged  there,  and  when  the 
young  man  went  dotvn  to  wash  himself,  a  fsh 
leaped  out  of  the  river, and  would  have  drowned 
him.  Then  the  angel  said  unto  him^  take  the 
fish.     xS.nd  the  young  man  laid  hold  of  the  fish 


76 

and  dreio  it  to  land.  To  whom  the  angel  said, 
open  the  fish,  and  take  the  heart,  and  the  liver, 
and  the  gall,  and  put  them  up  safely.  So  the 
young  man  did  as  the  angel  commanded  him, 
and  ivhen  they  had  roasted  the  fish,  they  did  eat 
it.  Then  the  young  man  said  unto  the  angel, 
brother  Jlzarias,  to  what  use  is  the  heart  and  the 
liver  and  the  gall  of  the  fish?  And  he  said  unto 
him,  touching  the  heart  and  the  liver,  if  a  devil, 
or  an  evil  spirit  trouble  any,  we  must  inake  a 
smoke  thereof  before  the  man  or  the  woman^ 
and  the  party  shall  he  no  more  vexed.  As  for  the 
gall,  it  is  good  to  anoint  a  man  that  hath  white- 
ness in  his  eyes  ;  he  shall  be  healed.  If  this  story 
does  not  savour  ^f  the  fabulous,  then  it  would  be 
difficult  lo  find  any  thing  that  did. 

In  the  book  of  Baruch,  there  are  also  several  things 
which  do  not  appear  to  be  true.  Baruch  is  said  to 
have  read  this  book,  in  the  fifih  year  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  in  the  ears  of  Jeremiah,  the 
king,  and  all  the  people  dwelling  in  Babylon, 
who  upon  hearing  it, collected  money  and  sent  ii  lo 
Jerusalem,  to  the  priests.  Now  Baruch,  wh  >  is 
here  allegef!  to  have  read  this  book  in  Ijabylon,  is 
said,  in  the  Canonical  Scriptures,  to  have  been  car- 
ried captive  into  Egvpt,  with  Jeremiah,  after  the 
.mui'der  of  (Jedaliah.  Again,  he  is  represented  to 
have  read  in  the  ears  of  Jeconias  the  king, and  of  all 

Tobit.  c.  vi.    Baruch.  i.  Jeremiah,  xl. 


77 

th6  people;  but  Jeconias  is  known  to  have  been  shut 
up  in  prison,  at  this  time, and  it  is  no  how  probable 
that  Baruch  would  have  access  to  him,  if  he  even 
had  been  in  Bal)ylon.  The  money  that  was  sent 
from  Babylon  was  to  enable  the  priests  to  offer  sac- 
rifices to  the  Lord,  but  the  temple  was  in  ruins  and 
there  was  no  altar.* 

In  the  chapters  added  to  the  book  of  Esther,  we 
read,  that  Alordocheus,  in  the  second  year  of  %^r- 
tcijcerxes  the  great,  was  a  great  man,  being  a 
servitor  in  the  king^s  court.  And  in  the  same, 
That  he  ivas  also  one  of  the  captives  which  Nahu- 
chodonosor  carried  from  Jerusa/em,ivith  Jeconias 
kingofJudea.  Now,  between  these  two  periods, 
there  intervened  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ;  so 
that,  ifhe  was  only  fifteen  years  of  asje,  when  caried 
away,  he  must  have  been  a  servitor  in  the  kuig'a 
court,  at  the  age  of  one  hundred  and  seventy  five 
years  ! 

Again,  Mordocheus  is  represented  as  being  <» 
great  man  in  the  court,  iyi  the  second  year  ofJir- 
taxerxes,  before  he  detected  tlie  conspiracy  against 
the  king's  life  Now  Artaxerxes  and  Ahasuerus 
were  the  same,  or  they  were  not;  if  the  former, 
this  history  clashes  vvith  the  Scriptural  account, 
for  there  it  appears,  that  Mordecai,  was  not,  before 

*  Barach,  i.  10.  And  Ihey  said  beho/d  we  have  sent  you 
money  to  hui/  you  burnt  ojjferin'^s,  and  incense,  and  prepare 
ye  manna,  and  offer  upon  the  altar  of  the  Lord  our  God. 


78 

this  time,  a  courtier,  or  a  conspicuous  man  ;  if  the 
latter,  then  this  addition  is  manifestly  false,  be- 
cause it  ascribes  to  Artaxerxes,  what  the  Scriptures 
ascribe  to  ^nofher  person. 

Moreover,  this  Apocryphal  writing  places  the 
conspiracy  a^aiist  the  king's  life  before  the  repudi- 
ation of  Vashri  ;ind  the  marriage  of  Esther,  but 
this  is  repugtiant  to  the  Canonical  Scriptures. 

It  is  also  asserted,  in  this  book,  that  Mordoche- 
us  received  honors  and  rewards  for  the  detection 
of  the  Conspiracy  ;  whereas,  in  the  Canonical  book 
of  Esther,  it  is  declared,  tlirit  he  ncf.ived  no  re- 
ward. And  a  different  reason  is  assigned,  in  the 
two  books,  f -r  Haman's  hatred  of  Mordecai.  In 
the  Canonic?!,  it  is  his  neglect  of  shewing  respect 
to  this  proud  courtier  ;  in  the  Apocryphal,  it  is 
the  punishment  of  the  two  Eunuchs,who  had  formed 
the  co'.ispirricy. 

And  tindly,  Haman,  in  this  spurious  work,  is 
call'.d  H  Macedonian  ;  and  it  is  said,  that  he  medi- 
tated the  design  of  transferring  the  Persian  king- 
di  m  to  the  Macedonians.  But  this  is  utterly  in- 
credible. The  kingdom  of  Macedon  must  have 
bet  n,  at  that  time,  most  obscure,  and  probably 
wholly  unknown,  at  the  Persian  Court.  But  this 
is  not  all,  iie  who  is  here  called  a  Macedonian,  is 
in  the  Canonical  book  said  to  be  an  Agagite. 
The  proof  of  the  Apocryphal    character  of  this 

*  See  chap.  xvi. 


79 

Addition  to  Kst^er,  which  has   been   adduced,  is 
in  all  reason  sufTicient. 

The  advocates  of  these  books  are  greatly  per- 
plexed to  find  a  place  in  the  history  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  for  the  wonderful  deliveiance,  wrought  by 
means  of  Judith.  It  seems  strange  that  no  aU 
Iusii)n  is  made  to  tliis  event  in  any  of  the  acknow- 
ledged books  of  Scripture  ;  and  more  unaccounta- 
ble still,  that  Josephus,  who  was  so  much  disposed 
to  relate  every  tiling  favourable  to  the  character  of 
his  nation,  should  never  make  the  least  mention  of 
it.  Somo  refer  this  history  to  the  period  preceding 
the  Babylonish  captivity  ;  while  others  are  of  opin- 
ion, that  the  events  occurred  in  the  time  ofCam- 
byses,  king  of  Persia.  But  the  name  of  the 
High  Priest,  here  mentioned,  does  not  occur  with 
the  names  of  the  High  Priests  contained  in  any  of 
the  genealogies.  From  the  time  of  the  building  of 
the  temple  by  Solomon,  to  its  overthrow  by  the 
Assyrians,  this  name  is  not  found  in  the  list  of 
High  Priests,  as  may  be  seen, by  consulting  the  vi. 
chapter  of  1  Chronicles  ;  nor,  in  the  catalogue  giv- 
en by  Josephus,  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  the  tenth 
book  of  his  Antiquities.  That  this  history  cannot 
be  placed  after  the  captivity,  is  manifest,  from  this 
circumstance,  that  the  temple  of  Solomon  was  still 
standing  when  the  transactions  which  are  related 
in  this  book,  occurred. 

Another  thing   in  the  book  of  Judith,  which  is 
very  suspicious,  is,  that  Holofernes  is  represented 


so 

as  saying,  Tell  me  now,  ye  Sons  of  Canaan,  who 
this  people  is,  that  dwelleth  in  the  hill  country  ^ 
and  what  are  the  cities  that  they  inhabit.  But 
how  can  it  be  reconciled  with  known  history,  that 
a  prince  of  Persia  should  be  wholly  ignorant  of  the 
Jewish  people  ? 

It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  what  is  said,  in  the 
close  of  the  book,  with  any  sound  principles  of  chro- 
nology. Judith  is  reprsented  as  young  and  beautiful, 
when  she  slew  Holofernes;  but  here  it  is  saifl,  That 
she  waxed  old  in  her  husband's  house,  being  an 
hundred  and  Jive  years  old.  And  there  was  none 
that  made  the  children  of  Israel  any  more  afraid^ 
in  the  days  of  Judith;  nor  a  long  time  after  her 
death.  In  whose  reign,  or  at  what  period,  we 
would  ask,  did  the  Jews  enjoy  this  long  season  of 
uninterrupted  tranquillity  ? 

Some  writers  who  are  fully  convinced  that  the 
history  of  Judith  cannot  be  reconciled  with  authen- 
tic history,  if  taken  literally,  are  of  opinion,  that 
it  contains  a  beautiful  allegory  ; — that  Bethulia, 
[the  i;/r^«w,)represents  the  church  of  God;  that  the 
assault  of  Nebuchadnezzar  signifies,  the  opposition 
of  the  world  and  its  prince;  that  the  victory  obtain- 
ed by  a  pious  woman,  is  intended  to  teach,  that 
the  church's  deliverance  is  not  effected  by  human 
might  or  power,  but  by  the  prayers  and  the  piety 
of  the  saints  &c.  This,  perhaps,  is  the  most  fa- 
vourable view  which  we  can  take  of  this  history  ; 
but  take  it  as  you  will,  it  is  clear  that  the  book  is 


SI 

Apocryphal,   and  has  no  right  to   a  place  in  the 
Sacred  Canon. 

Between  tlie  first  and  second  hooks  of  Macca- 
bees, there  is  a  palpable  contradiction  ;  for  in  the 
first  book  it  is  said,  that  Judas  died  in  the  one 
hundred  and  fifty  second  year:  hut  in  the 
second,  that  in  the  one  hundred  and  eigh- 
ty eighth  year,  the  people  that  wei^e  in  Judea, 
and  Judas,  and  the  council,  sent  greeting  and 
health  unto  j^ristobulus.  Thus,  Judas,  is  made 
to  join  in  sending  a  ktter  six  and  thirty  years  after 
his  death  !  The  contradiction  is  manifest.  In  the 
the  same  first  chapter  of  the  second  book,  there  is  a 
story  inserted,  which  has  very  much  the  air  of  a 
fable.  For  when  our  Fathers  were  led  into  Per- 
sia, the  priests  that  were  then  devout,  took  the 
fire  of  the  altar  privily  arid  hid  it  in  a  hollow 
jilace  of  a  pit  without  water,  where  they  kept  it 
sure,  so  that  the  place  was  unknown  to  all  men. 
Now  after  many  years,  when  it  pleased  God^ 
Nehemias,  being  sent  from  the  king  of  Persia j 
did  send  of  theposterity  of  those  priests  that  had 
hid  it,  to  the  fire:  but  when  they  told  us  they 
found  no  fire,  but  thick  loater :  then  command- 
ed he  them  to  draw  it  up  and  bring  it,  and  when 
the  sacrifices  were  laid  on,  Nehemias  command- 
ed the  priests  to  sprinkle  the  wood  and  things 
laid  thereon,  with  the  water.  IVhen  this  was 
done  and  the  time  cai^e  that  the  Sun  shone, 
which  before  was  hid  in  the  clouds,  a  great  fire. 

H 


82 

was  kindled.  But  the  Jews  were  not  carried  to 
Persia  but  to  Babylon,  and  the  rest  of  the  story 
has  no  foundation,  whatever,  in  truth. 

In  the  second  chapter  we  have  another  fabulous 
story  of  Jeremiah's  taking  the  ark  and  altar,  and 
altar  of  incense,  to  mount  Pisgah,  and  hiding 
them  in  a  hollow  cave,  and  closing  them  up.  This 
place  Jeremiah  declared  should  be  unknown,  Until 
the  time  that  God  gathered  his  people  again 
together,  and  received  theni  into  mercy.  When 
the  cloud  a%  it  appeared  unto  Moses,  shall  ap- 
pear again. 

There  is  another  conti-adiciion  bptvveen  these 
books  of  Maccabees,  in  relation  to  the  death  of  An- 
tiochus  Epiphrtnes.  In  the  first  it  is  said,  that  he 
died  at  Elymais,  in  Persia,  in  the  hundred 
and  f.*rty  ninth  year ;  but  in  the  second  bdok, 
it  is  related,  that  after  entering  Persopolis,  with  a 
view  of  overthrowing  the  temple  and  city, he  was  re- 
pulsed by  the  inhabitants  ;  and  while  on  his  journey 
from  this  place,  he  ivas  seized  with  a  dreadful 
disease  of  the  bowels,  and  died  in  the  moun- 
tains. 

Moreover,  the  accounts  given  of  Nicanor,  in  the 
seventh  chapter  of  the  first  book,  and  in  the  four- 
teenth and  fifteenth  chapters  of  the  second  book,  are 
totally  inconsistent. 

In  the  first  book  of  Maccahees  an  erroneous 
account   is    given    of    the     civil    government    of 

2  Mac.  if.     1  jSIiic.  viii.  16. 


the  Romans,  where  it  is  snid,  That  they  committed 
their  government  to  one  man  every  year,  ivho 
ruled  over  all  their  country,  and  that  all  were 
obedient  to  that  one.  Where:is,  it  is  well  known 
that  no  such  form  ofgovernment  ever  existed  among 
the  Romans 

6.  Finally,  it  is  manifest  that  these  books  were 
not  inspired,  and  therefore  not  Canonical,  because 
they  were  not  written  by  prophets  ;  but  by  men 
who  speak  of  their  labours  in  a  way  wholly  incom- 
patil)le  with  inspiration. 

Jerome  and  Eusebius  were  of  opinion,  that  .To- 
sephus  was  the  author  of  the  books  of  the  Macca- 
bees ;  but  it  has  never  been  supposed  by  any,  thai 
he  was  an  inspired  man;  therefore  if  this  opinion 
be  correct,  these  books  are  no  more  Canonical,  than 
the  Antiquities  or  Wars  of  the  Jews,  by  the  same 
author. 

It  has  been  the  constant  tradition  of  Jews  and 
Christians,  that  the  spirit  of  prophecy  ceased  with 
Malachi,  until  the  appearance  of  John  the  13aptist. 
Malachi    has,  on  this  account,  been  called  by  the 

Jews,    THE    SEAL    OF    THE    PROPHETS. 

Josephus,  in  his  book  against  Apion,  after  say" 
ing,  that  it  belonged  to  the  prophets  alone,  to  writ.: 
inspired  books,  adds  these  words,  <'  From  the  time 
of  Artaxerxes,  there  were  some  among  us,  who 
wrote  books  even  to  our  own  times,  but  these  are 
not  of  equal  authority  with  the  preceding,  because 
the  succession  of  prophets  was  not  complete." 


84 

EusEBius,  in  giving  a  catalogue  of  the  leaders  of 
the  Jews,  denies  that  he  can  proceed  any  lower 
than  Zerubbabel,  ''Because,"  says  he,  "after  the 
I'eturn  from  captivity  untill  the  advent  of  our  Sa- 
viour, there  is  no  book  which  can  be  esteemed  sa- 
cred." 

Augustine  gives  a  similar  testimony.  "After 
Mailachi  the  Jews  had  no  prophet,  during  that 
whole  period  which  intervened  between  the 
return  from  captivity  and  the  advent  of  our  Savi- 
our." 

Neither  does  Genebrard  dissent  from  this  opin- 
ion, "  From  Malachi  to  'John  the  Baptist,"  says  he, 
*'  no  prophets  existed." 

Drusius  cites  the  following  words,  from  the 
Compiler  of  Jewish  History,  "The  rest  of  the  dis- 
courses of  Simon,  and  his  wars,  and  the  wars  of  his 
brother,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  Joseph, 
the  Son  of  Gorion,  and  in  the  book  of  the  Asmone- 
ans,and  in  the  books  of  the  Roman  kings."  Here, 
the  books  of  the  Maccabees,  are  placed  between  the 
writings  of  Josephus  and  the  Roman  history. 

The  book  of  Wisdom  does  indeed  claim  to  be  the 
work  of  Solomon,  an  insjiired  man  -^  but  this  claim 
furnishes  the  strongest  ground  for  its  condemna- 
tion. It  is  capable  of  the  clearest  proof,  from  inter- 
nal evidence,  that  this  was  the  production  of  some 
person,  probably  a  Helenistic  jew,  who  lived  long 
after  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  comple- 
ted.    It  contains  manifest  allusions  to  Grecian  qus- 


&5 

lonis,  and  is  tinctured  with  the  Grecian  philoso- 
phy. The  manner  in  which  tlie  author  praises 
himself  is  fulsomo,  and  has  no  parallel  in  any  in- 
spired writer.  This  hook  has  been  ascribed  to  Phi- 
lo  Judjeus  ;  if  this  conjecture  be  correct,  doubtless 
it  lias  no  just  claim  to  be  considered  a  Canonical 
book.  But  whoever  was  the  author,  his  endea- 
vouring; to  pass  his  composition  off  for  a  writiuj^  of 
Solomon,  is  sufficient  to  <lecideevery  question  re- 
specting his  inspiration.  If  Solomon  had  written 
this  book,  it  wouUl  have  been  found  in  the  Jewish 
Canon, and  in  the  He  brew  anguage.  The  writer  is 
also  guilty  of  shameful  flattery  to  h.is  own  nation, 
which  is  entirely  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  all  the 
pr  >phets.  He  has  also,  without  any  f(iundation,added 
many  things  to  the  sacred  narration, contained  m  the 
Canonical  history  ;  and  has  minglcfl  with  it,  mucli, 
which  is  of  the  nature  of  poetical  embellishment. 
And,  indeed,  ihe  whole  style  of  the  composition, 
savours  too  much  of  artificial  eloquence,  to  be  attri- 
buted to  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  the  constant  character- 
istic of  whose  productions  arc,  simplicity  and  sub- 
limity. 

EccLESiASTicus,  which  is  superior  to  all  the 
other  Apocryphal  books,  was  written  by  one 
Jesus  the  sun  of  Sikach.  His  grandtather, 
of  the  same  name,  it  seems,  had  wrivten  a  book, 
which  he  left  to  his  son  Sirach  :  and  he  delivered 
it  to  his  son  Jesus,  who  loolc  great  pains  to  reduce 
u  2 


3& 

it  into  orfler  ;  but  he  no  where  assumes  the  char- 
acter of  a  prophet  himself,  nor  does  he  claim  it  for 
the  original  author,  his  grandfather.  In  the  pro- 
rogue, he  says,  Mi/  grandfather  Jesus,  when  he 
had  much  given  himself  to  the  reading  of  the 
Law  and  the  prophets,  and  other  books  of  our 
fathers,  and  had  gotten  therein  good  judgment, 
was  drawn  on  also  himself  to  write  something 
pertaining  to  learning  and  luisdom,  to  the  in- 
tent that  those  which  are  desirous  to  learn,  and 
are  addicted  to  these  things,  viight  profit  much 
Tnore,  in  living  according  to  the  Law.  PVhet^e' 
fore  let  me  intreat  you  to  read  it  loith  favour 
and  attention,and  to pardo7ius,ivherein  we  may 
seem  to  come  short  of  some  words  which  we  have 
laboured  to  biterpret.  Farther,  some  things  ut- 
tered in  Hebrew,  and  translated  into  anothev! 
iongue,have  not  the  same  force  in  them. — From 
the  eight  and  thirtieth  year,  coming  into  Egypt 
luhen  Euergetes  was  king,  and  continuing  there 
for  some  time,  I  found  a  book  of  no  small  learn- 
ing:  therefore  I  thought  it  most  necessary  for 
me  to  bestow  some  diligence  and.  travail  to  inter- 
pret it ;  using  great  watchfulness,  and  skill,  in 
that  space  to  bri?ig  the  book  to  an  end,  &c.  Sure- 
ly, there  is  no  need  of  further  arguments  to  prove, 
that  this  modest  author  did  not  claim  to  be  inspired. 
The  author  of  the  second  book  of  the  Maccabees 
professes  to  have  reduced  a  work  o(^  Jason  of  Cy- 
rcne,  consisting  of  live  volumes,  into  one  volume^ 


87 

Concerning  which  work  he  says,  Therefore  to 
lis  that  have  taken  upon  us  this  painful  labour  of 
ahridirins^,  it  was  not  easy,  but  a  matter  of  sweat 
and  watching.  Again,  Leaving  to  the  author^ 
the  exact  handling  of  every  particular  ^  and  labor- 
ing to  follow  the  rules  of  an  abridgment.  To  stand 
upon  every  point  and  go  over  things  at  large,  and 
to  be  curious  in  particulars,  belongeth  to  the  first 
author  of  the  story  ;  but  louse  brevity  and  avoid 
much  labouring  of  the  ivork,  is  lobe  granted  to 
hitn  that  maketh  an  abridgment.  Is  any  thing 
mure  needed  to  prove,  that  this  writer  did  not  pro- 
fess to  be  inspired?  If  there  was  any  inspiration 
in  the  case,  it  must  be  attributed  to  Jason  of  Gy- 
rene, the  original  writer  of  the  history  ;  but  his 
work  is  long  since  lost  ;  and  we  now  possess  only 
the  abridgment  which  cost  the  writer  so  much  la- 
bour and  pains.  Thus,  I  think  it  sufliciently  ap- 
pears, that  the  authors  of  these  disputed  books, 
were  not  prophets  ;  and  that,  as  far  as  we  can  as- 
certain the  circumstances  in  which  they  wrote 
they  did  not  lay  claim  to  inspiration,  but  expressed 
themselves  in  such  a  way,  as  no  man  under  the 
influence  of  inspiration,  ever  did. 

The  Popish  writers,  to  evade  the  force  of  the 
argument.-,  of  their  adversaries,  pretend,  that  there 
was  a  twofo  Id  Canon  ;  that  some  of  the  books  of 
Scripture  are  protocanonical ;  and  others  deute- 
rocanonical.  If,  by  this  distinction,  they  only- 
meant  that  the  word  canon  was  often  used  by  the 


8S 

Fathers, with  great  latitude,so  as  to  include  all  books 
that  were  ever  read  in  the  churches,  or  that  were 
contained  in  the  volume  of  the  Greek  Bible,  the 
distinction  is  correct,  and  signifies  the  same,  as  is 
often  expressed,  by  calling  some  books,  Sacred 
and  Canonical,  and  others,  Ecclesiastical.  But 
these  writers  make  it  manifest,  that  they  mean 
much  more  than  this.  They  wish  lo  put  their 
deuterocanonical  books,  on  a  level  with  the  old 
Jewish  Canon  ;  and  this  distinction  is  intended  to 
teach,  that  after  the  first  Canon  was  constituted, 
other  books  were,  from  time  to  time,  added  :  but 
when  these  books  thus  annexed  to  the  Canon  have 
been  pronounced  upon  by  the  competent  authority, 
they  are  to  be  received  as  of  equal  authority  with 
the  former.  When  this  second  Canon  was  consti- 
tuted, is  a  matter  concerning  which  they  are 
not  agreed  ;  some  pretend,  that  in  the  time  of 
Shamnai  and  Hillel,  two  famous  rabbies,  who 
lived  before  the  advent  of  the  Saviour,  these  books 
were  added  to  ihe  Canon.  But  why  then  are 
they  not  included  in  the  Hebrew  Canon  ?  Why 
does  Josephus  never  mention  them  ?  Why  are 
they  never  quoted  nor  alluded  to,  in  the  New 
Testament  ?  And  why  did  all  the  earlier  Fathers 
omit  to  cite  them;  or,  expressly  reject  them  ?  The 
difficulties  of  this  theory  bt^ing  too  prominent,  the 
most  of  the  advocates  of  the  Apocrypha,  suppose, 
that  these  books,  after  having  remained  in  doubt 
before,  were  received  by   the  Supreme   authority 


89 

of  the  church,  in  the  fourth  century.  They  allepje, 
that  these  books  were  sanctioned  by  the  council  of 
Nice,  and  by  the  third  council  of  Carthage,  which 
met  A.  D.  397.  But  the  story  of  the  method 
pursued  by  the  council  of  Nice,  to  distinguish 
between  Canonical  and  spurious  books,  is  fabulous 
and  ridiculous.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Canons  of 
that  council  relative  to  these  books  ;  and  certainly 
they  cited  no  authorities  from  them,  in  confirma- 
tion of  the  doctrines  established  by  them.  And  as 
to  the  third  council  of  Carthage,  it  may  be  asked, 
what  authority  had  this  provincial  s)^nod  to  deter- 
mine any  thing  for  the  whole  church,  respecting 
the  Canon.  But  there  is  no  certainty  that  this  coun- 
cil did  determine  any  thing  on  the  subject;  for  in  ihe 
Same  Canon,  there  is  mention  made  of  Pope  Boni- 
fase,  as  living  at  that  time,  whereas  he  did  not  rise  to 
this  dignity,  until  more  than  twenty  years  after- 
wards ;  in  which  time,  three  other  popes  occupied 
the  see  of  Rome;  so  that  this  Canon  could  not  have 
been  formed  by  the  third  Council  of  Carthage.  And 
in  some  copies  it  is  inserted,  as  the  fourteenth  of  the 
seventh  council  of  Carthage.  However  this  may 
be,  we  may  be  confident,  that  no  Council  of  the 
fourth  century  had  any  authority  to  add  to  the 
Canon  of  Scripture,  books  which  were  not  only 
not  received  before,  but  explicitly  rejected  as  apoc- 
ryphal, by  most  of  the  Fathers.  Our  opponents 
say,  that  these  books  were  uncertain  before,  but 
oow  received  confirmation.     How  could  there  be 


90 

any  uncertainty,  in  regard  to  these  books,  if  the 
church  was  as  infallible,  in  the  first  three  ages,  as 
in  the  fourth.  These  books  were  either  Canonical 
before  the  fourth  century,  or  they  were  not :  if 
the  former,  how  came  it  to  pass  they  were  not  re- 
cognized by  the  apostles  ?  How  came  they  to  be 
overlooked  and  rejected  by  tbe  primitive  Fathers  ? 
But  if  they  were  not  canonical  before,  they  must 
have  been  made  Canonical  by  the  decree  of  some 
Council.  That  is,  the  church  can  make  that  an 
inspired  book,  which  was  never  given  by  inspira- 
tion. This  absurdity  was  before  mentioned,  but 
it  deserves  to  be  repeated,  because  however  unrea- 
sonable it  may  be,  it  forms  the  true,  and  almost 
the  only  ground,  on  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Ro- 
mish church,  in  regard  to  these  Apocryphal  books, 
rests.  This  is,  indeed,  a  part  of  the  Pope's  supre- 
macy. Some  of  their  best  writers,  however,  de- 
ny this  doctrine;  and  whatever  others  may  pretend, 
it  is  most  certain,  that  the  Fathers,  with  one  con- 
sent believed,  that  the  Canon  of  Sacred  Scripture 
was  complete  in  their  time  :  they  never  dreamed  of 
books  not  then  Canonical,  becoming  such,  by  any 
authority  upon  earth.  Indeed,  the  idea  of  adding 
to  the  Canon  what  did  not,  from  the  beginning, 
belong  to  it,  never  seems  to  have  entered  the  mind 
of  any  person,  in  former  times.  If  this  doctrine 
were  correct,  we  might  still  have  additions  made 
to  the  Canon,  and  that  too,  of  books  which  have 
existed  for  hundreds  of  years. 


91 

This  question  may  be  bro«o;ht  to  a  speedy  issue, 
with  all  unprejudiced  juflges.  These  books  were 
either  written  by  divine  inspiration  for  the  gui- 
dance of  the  churcli  in  matters  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, or  they  were  not  ;  if  the  former,  they  always 
had  a  right  to  a  place  in  the  Canon  ;  if  the  latter, 
no  act  of  a  Po|)e  or  Council  could  render  that  di- 
vine, which  was  not  so  before.  It  would  be  to 
change  the  nature  of  a  fact,  than  which  nothing 
is  more  impossible. 

It  is  alleged,  with  much  confidence,  that  the 
Greek  Bibles,  used  by  the  Fathers,  contained 
these  books  ;  and,  therefore,  whenever  they  give 
their  testimony  to  the  Snored  Scriptures,  these  are 
included.  This  argument  proves  too  much,  for 
the  third  book  of  Esdras  and  the  prayer  of  Man- 
asses  were  contained  in  these  volumes,  but  these 
are  rejected  by  the  Romanists.  The  truth,  howe- 
ver, is,  that  these  books  were  not  originally  con- 
nected with  the  Septuagint ;  they  were  probably 
introduced  into  some  of  the  later  Greek  versions, 
which  were  made  by  heretics.  These  versions, 
particularly  that  of  Theodotion,  came  to  be  used 
promiscuously  with- that  of  the  LXX  ;  and  to  this 
day,  the  common  copies  contain  the  version  of  the 
book  of  Daniel  by  Theodotion,  instead  of  that 
by  tlic  LXX. 

By  some  such  mean*,  these  Apocryphal  books 
crept  into  the  Greek  Bible  ;  but  the  early  Fathers 
were  careful  to  distinguish  between  them  and  the 
Canonical  Scriptures,  as  we  have  already  seen. 


92 

Thattiiey  were  read  in  the  churches  is  also  true  ; 
but  not  as  Scripture  ;  not  for  the  eonfirrnation  of 
doctrine  ;  but  for  the  edification  of  the  common 
people. 

Some  of  the  Fathers,  it  is  true,  cited  them  as 
authority,  but  very  seldom,  and  the  reason  which 
rendered  it  difficult  for  them  to  distinguish  accu- 
rately between  Ecclesiastical  and  Canonical  books 
has  already  been  given.  These  pious  men  were 
generally  unacquainted  with  Hebrew  literature, 
and  finding  all  these  books  in  Greek,  and  frequently 
bound  up  in  the  same  volume,  as  the  Canonical 
Scriptures  ;  and  observing  that  they  contained  ex- 
cellent rules  for  the  direction  of  life  and  the  regu- 
lation of  morals,  they  sometimes  referred  to  them? 
and  cited  passages  from  them,  ano  permitted  them 
to  be  read  in  the  church,  for  the  instruction  and  edi- 
fication of  the  people. 

But  the  more  learned  of  the  Fathers,  who  ex- 
amined into  the  authority  of  the  sacred  books 
with  unceasing  diligence,  clearly  marked  the  dis- 
tinction between  such  books  as  v/ere  Canoni- 
cal, and  such  as  were  merely  human  composi- 
tions. And  some  of  them  even  disapproved  of  the 
reading  of  these  Apocryphal  books  by  the  people  ; 
and  some  councils  warned  the  churches  against 
them.  It  was  with  this  single  view  that  so  many 
catalogues  of  the  Canonical  books  were  prepared, 
and  published. 

Notwithstanding  that  we  have  taken  so  much  pains 
to  shew  that  the  books  called,   Apocrypha,  are  ao 


93 

Canonical,  we  wish  to  avoid  the  opposite  extreme 
of  regartliuo;  them  as  useless,  or  injurious.  Sonric 
of  theso  books  are  important  for  the  historical  in- 
formation which  they  contain  ;  and,  especially,  as 
the  facts  recorded  in  them  ai"C,  in  some  instances,  the 
fulfilment  of  re.narkahic  prop'aecies. 

Oihorsof  ihem  are  r  'plctc  with  sacrrnl,  moral,  and 
prudential  maxims,  very  useful  to  oil,  in  the  regu- 
lation of  life  and  manners  ;  but  oven  with  these, 
arc  inicr^piM'sed  seniiments,  which  are  not  perfectly 
accordant  with  the  word  of  God.  In  sliort,  these 
bo'iksare  of  very  different  value,  but  in  the  best  of 
them  there  is  so  much  error  and  imperfection,  as 
to  Convince  us,  that  they  are  human  producti  )ns, 
and  should  be  used  as  such  :  not  as  an  infallible  rule, 
bui  as  useful  helps  in  the  attainment  of  knowledire, 
and  ill  the  practice  of  virtue.  'I^h'-rvfore,  when 
wewouul  exclude  them  fi-o:n  a  place  in  the  ni''.)le, 
we  would  not  proscribe  them  as  unlit  to  be  read  ;  but 
wc  would  have  them  published  in  a  separate  Vol- 
ume, and  studied  much  more  carefully,  than  they 
commonlyhave  been. 

And  "vhile  we  would  dissent  from  the  prarti^^e 
of  reading  ie.^sons  from  these  !)Ooks,  as  Scriptural 
Lessons  are  read  in  the  chorch,  we  wo  .Id  cordially 
recommend  the  frequent  perusal,  in  private,  of  the 
first  of  Maccabees,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and 
abo^e  all,  Ecclesiasticus. 

It  is  a   lishonour  to  fli.d,  and  a  <lisn!rao;ement  of 
his  word, to  place  other  books,  in  any  respect,oa  a  Ic- 
z 


94 

vel  with  THE  DIVINE  ORACLES  ;  but  it  is  a  privilege 
to  be  permitted,  to  have  access  to  the  writings  of 
men,  eminent  for  their  wisdom  and  piety.  And  it 
is  also  a  matter  of  curious  instruction  to  learn,  what 
were  the  opinions  of  men,  in  ages  long  past,and  in 
countries  far  remote. 


SECTION-     Vi. 

XO    CANONICAL  BOOK    OF   TFIE  OLD   TESTAMENT 
HAS  BEEN  LOST. 

On  this  subject,  there  has  existed  some  diversity 
of  opinion  Chrysostom  is  cited  by  Bellarmine. 
as  saying,  "That  many  of  the  writings  of  the  pro- 
phets had  porished,  which  may  readily  be  proved, 
from  the  history  in  Chronicles.  For  the  Jews  were 
negligent ;  and  not  only  negligent  but  impious,  so 
that  some  books  were  lost  through  carelessness,  and 
others  were  burned,  or  otherwise  destroyed." 

In  confirmation  of  this  opinion,  an  appeal  is 
made  to  1  Kings  iv.  3:2,  3J,  where  it  is  said  of  So- 
lomon, That  he  spake  three  thousand  proverbs, 
and  his  songs  were  a  thousand  and  five.  Jlnd 
he  spake  of  trees^  from  the  cedar  in  Lebanon, 
even  unto  the  hyssop,  that  springeth  out  of  the 
wall:  he  spake  also  of  beasts,  and  of  fowl,  and 
of  creeping  thiiigs,  and  of  fishes.  All  these  pro- 
ductions, it  is  acknowledg  d,  have  perished. 

Again  it  is  said  in  I  Chroii.  xxix.  'i^,  30.  Now 
the  acts  of  David  the  king,  first  and  last,  be- 
hold they  are  written  in  the  book  of  Samuel  the 
seer,  and  in  the  hook  of  Nathan  the  prophet, 
and  in  the  book  of  Gad  the  seer.  JVith  all  his 
reign,  and  his  might,  and  the   times  that  went 


96 

over  hJtn^  and  ooer  Israel,  and  over  all  the  king- 
doms of  the  countries.  The  book  of.Tasher,  also, 
is  twice  mentioned  in  Scripture.  In  Joshua  x.  13, 
J2nd  the  sun  stood  stilly  and  the  rnoon  stayed^ 
iintil  the  people  had  avenged  themselves  on  their 
enemies.  Is  not  this  written  in  the  hookof  Jash- 
er  ?  And  in  2  Sam.  i.  IS,  ^nd  he  bade  them  teach 
the  chidren  of  Israel  the  use  of  the  bow  :  behold 
it  is  written  in  the  hook  of  Jasher. 

The  book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord,  is  re- 
ferred to,  in  Num.  xxi.  14. 

But  we  have  in  the  Canon  no  books  under  the 
name  of  Nathan  and  Gad  :  nor,any  book  of  Jasher  ; 
nor.of  the  wars  of  the  Lord. 

Moreover,  we  frequentl}'  are  referred,  in  the  Sa- 
cred history,  to  other  Chronicles  or  Annals,  for  a 
fuller  account  of  the  matters  spoken  of,  which 
Chronicles  are  not  no^v  extant. 

And  in  2  Chron.  ix.  2y,  it  is  said,  Now  the  rest 
of  the  ^cts  of  Solomon,  first  and  last,  are  they 
not  written  in  the  book  of  Natha7i  the  prophet, 
and  in  the  prophecy  ofJlhijah  the  Shilojiite,  and 
in  the  visions  of  Iddo  the  seer,  against  Jeroboam 
the  son  of  Nehat.  Now  it  is  u  ell  known, that  none 
of  these  writings  of  the  propiiets  are  in  the  Canon  j 
at  least,  none  of  them  under  their  names, 

Ii  is  sai  '  also  in  2  Chron.  xii.  .5,  Now  the  acts 
of  Behoboam,  first  and  last,  are  they  not  ivrit- 
ten  in  flie  book  of  Shemaiah  the  prophet,  and  of 
Iddo  the  Seer,  concei  ning genecUogies  ?    Of  w  hicls 


97 

works  notiiins;  remains,  under  the  names  of  these 
proplicis. 

1 .  The  first  observation  which  I  would  make  on 
this  subject,  is,  that  every  book  referred  to,  or  quo- 
ted, in  the  Sacred  writings,  is  ni't  necessarilv  an  in- 
spired, or  Canonical  book.  Because  Paul  cites 
passages  from  the  Greek  poets,  it  docs  not  fol- 
low, that  we  must  receive  tlw^ir  poems,  as  inspi- 
red, 

2.  A  book  may  be  written  by  an  inspired  man, 
and  yet  be  neitlicr  inspired  nor  Canonical.  Inspira- 
tion was  not  constantly  afforded  to  the  prophets,but 
was  occasioniil.  and  for  particular,  important  jnupo- 
ses.  In  common  matters,  and  especially  in  things 
noliow  connected  witli  religion,  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose,  that  the  prophcis  and  apostles  were  left  to 
tlie  .same  guidance  of  reason  and  common  sen>ic,  as 
other  men.  A  man,  therefore,  inspired  to  deliver 
some  proj)hecy,  or  even  to  write  a  Canonical  book, 
might  write  other  books,  with  no  greater  assistance 
than  other  good  men  receive.  Because  S  domon 
was  inspired, to  write  some  Canonical  books,  it  docs 
not  follow,  that  wliat  he  wrote  on  NaturaJ  History, 
was  also  inspired.  The  Scriptures,  however,  do  not 
say,  that  his  Three  tiiousand  provei'bs,  and  his  dis- 
couiscs  on  Natural  History  were  ever  committed 
to  writing.  It  only  says,  that  he  spake  these 
things.  But  supposing  that  all  these  discourses 
were  committed  to  writing,  which  is  not  improba- 
ble, there  is  not  the  least  reason  for  believing  that 


t    4 


'• 


98 

they  were  inspired  ;  any  more  than  Solomon's  pri- 
vate letters  to  his  friends,  if  he  ever  wrote  any. 
Let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  prophets  and  apos- 
tles were  only  inspired  on  special  occasions,  and 
on  particular  subjects,  and  all  difficulties  resptscting 
such  works  as  these  will,  vanish.  How  many  of 
the  books  referred  to  in  the  Bible,  and  mentioned 
above,  may  have  been  of  this  description,  it  is 
now  impossible  to  tell  ;  but  probably  several  of 
them  belong;  to  this  class.  No  doubt  there  were 
many  books  of  Annals,  much  more  minute  and 
particular  in  the  narration  of  facts,  than  those  which 
we  have.  It  was  often  enough  to  refer  to  these 
5/«/ejo«/7£'r.S',  or  public  documents,  as  being  suffi- 
ciently correct,  in  regard  to  the  facts  on  account  of 
which  the  reference  was  made.  There  is  nothing 
derogatory  to  the  word  of  God,  in  the  supposition? 
that  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles,  which  we 
have  in  the  Canon,  were  compiled  by  the  inspired 
prophets  from  these  public  records.  All  that  is 
necessary  for  u?,  is,  fhnt  the  facts  are  truly  related; 
and  this  could  be  as  infallibly  secured  on  this  hy- 
pothesis, as  any  other. 

The  book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord,  might, 
for  ought  that  appears,  have  been  merely  a  muster- 
roll  of  the  arm}'.  The  word  translated  hook,  has 
so  extensive  a  meaning  in  Hebrew,  that  it  is  not 
even  necessary  to  suppose,  that  it  was  a  writing  at 
all.  The  book  of  Jasher,  (or  of  Rectitude,  if  we 
translate  the  word,)  might  have  been   some  ust-ful 


99 

compend  taken  from  Scripture,  or  composed  by  the 
wise,  for  the  regulation  of  justice  and  equity,  be- 
tween man  and  man. 

Augustine,  in  his  City  of  Ood,  has  distin- 
guished accurately  on  this  subject.  "I  think," 
says  he,  "  that  those  books  which  should  have  au- 
thority in  religion  were  revealed  by  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, and  that  men  composed  others  by  historical  dil- 
igence, as  the  prophets  did  these  by  inspiration. 
And  these  two  classes  of  books  are  so  distinct,  that 
it  is  only  by  those  written  by  inspiration,  that  we 
are  t  >  suppose  that  God,  through  them,  is  speak- 
ing unto  us.  The  one  class  is  useful  for  fulne^s  of 
knowledge  ;  the  other  for  authority  in  religion  j 
in  which  authority  the  Canon  is  preserved." 

3.  But  again,  it  may  be  maintained,  without 
any  prejudice  to  the  completeness  of  the  Canon, 
that  there  may  have  been  inspired  writings  which 
were  not  intended  for  the  instruction  of  the  church 
in  all  ages,  but  composed  by  the  prophets  for  some 
special  occasion.  Tliese  writings,  though  inspired, 
were  not  Canonical.  They  were  temporary  in 
their  design,  and  when  that  was  accomplished,  they 
were  no  longer  needed.  We  know,  that  the  pro- 
phets delivered,  by  inspiration,  many  discourses  to 
the  people,  of  which  we  have  not  a  trace  on  record. 
Many  true  prophets  are  mentioned,  vvho  wrote  no- 
thing that  we  know  of;  and  several  are  mention- 
ed, whose  names  are  not  even  given.  The  same 
is  true  of  the    apostles.      Very  few  of  them   had 


100 

any  concern  in  writina:  the  Canonical  Scriptures, 
and  yet  ih.  y  all  possessed  plenary  inspiration. 
And  if  they  wrote  letttrs,  on  special  occasions,  to 
the  cliurehes  plaiit(  d  by  them  ;  yet  these  were  not 
designed  for  the  perpetual  instruction  of  the  univer- 
sal church.  The: (fore,  Shemaiah,  and Iddo,  and 
Nathan^  and  Gad,  might  have  written  some  things 
by  inspiration,  which  wire  never  intend  d  to  form 
a  part  of  the  Sacred  Volume.  It  is  not  asserted, 
that  thfre  certainly  existed  such  temporary,  inspi- 
red writings:  all  that  is  neces'^ary  to  be  inainiain- 
ed,  is,  that  supposing  such  to  have  existed,  which 
is  not  in'probabie,  it  does  not  follow  thiit  the  Canon 
is  incomplete,  by  reason  of  their  loss.  As  this  opi- 
nion may  be  startling  to  some,  who  have  not  tho- 
roughly considered  it,  I  will  call  in  to  its  support, 
the  opinions  of  some  distinguished  Theologians. 
"  It  has  bien  observed,"  says  Francis  Junius, 
"that  it  is  one  thing  to  call  a  book  Sacred,  ano- 
ther to  say  that  it  is  Canonical  ;  for  every  book 
was  sacred  which  was  edited  by  a  prophet,  or  apos- 
tle ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  every  such  sacred 
book  is  Canonical,  and  was  designed  for  the  whole 
body  of  the  church  For  example,  it  is  credible 
that  Isaiah  the  Prophet  wrote  many  thmg^,  as  a 
prophet,  which  were  truly  inspired,  but  those  \\ri- 
tings  only  were  Canonical,  which  God  consecrated 
to  the  treasure  of  the  church,  and  which  by  special 
diiection  were  added  to  the  public  Canon.  Thus, 
Paui  and  the  other  apostles,  may  have  written  ma.- 


101 


ny  thinsjs,  by  divine  inspiration,  wliicli  arc  not  now 
extant  ;  but  those  only  are  Cmiunical,  whicli  were 
placed  in  the  Sicred  \'olunie,  for  the  use  of  ilie 
universal  church  :  which  Canon  received  the  ap- 
probation of  the  apostits,  especially ,  of  John,  who 
so  long  i;re3ided  over  the  churches  in  Asia."* 

The  Kvangelical  VVirsius,  of  an  age  somewhat 
later,  delivers  his  opinion  on  this  point,  in  the  fol- 
lowing nfianner  ;  "No  one,  1  think,  can  doubt,  but 
that  all  the  apostles  in  tlie  diligent  exercise  of  their 
office,  wrote  frequent  letters  to  the  cijurclies  under 
their  care,  when  they  could  not  be  present  uith 
them  ;  and  to  whou)  they  might  ofien  wish  to  com- 
municate some  instruction  necessary  for  them  in 
the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed.  It 
would  seem  to  me  to  be  injurious  to  th.  reputation 
of  those  faithful  and  assiduous  men,  to  sui)|)osc, 
that  not  one  of  them  ever  wiole  any  epistle,  or  ad- 
dressed to  a  church,  any  writing,  except  thwSe  ff;w, 
whose  Kpislles  are  in  the  Canon.  Now,  as  Peter, 
and  Paul,  and  James,  and  John,  were  induced  to 
write  to  the  churches,  on  aocount  of  the  need  in 
which  the)  Stood  of  instruction,  why  would  not 
the  same  necessity  induce  the  otner  apjsilesfo 
write  to  the  cliurclies  under  their  care.  Nor  is 
there  any  reason  why  we  should  complam  of  the 
great  loss  which  we  have  sustained,  b<  cause  these 
precious  ilocunients  have  perished  ;   it  is  ralnur  mat- 

"■  Explic.  Ill  i\um.  xxi- 


102 

ter  of  gratitude,  that  so  many  have  been  preserved 
by  the  pr  *•- i:lent  benevoitiiice  of  God  towards  us, 
and  so  abu-idantiy  sufficient  to  instruct  us,  in  the 
thit^gs  pertaining  to  salvation."* 

Although  I  have  cited  tins  passage  from  this  ex- 
celknit  and  orthodox  thei  logian,  in  favour  of  the 
sentiment  advanced  ;  \  el  1  do  not  f  el  at  liberty 
to  go  the  whole  lens'th  of  his  opinion,  here  expres- 
sed. There  is  no  reason  to  ihink,  th;tt  any  of  the 
other  apostles  co^•.p(l^ed  such  works,  as  those  which 
constitute  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament.  If 
they  had,  some  of  them  would  have  been  pr  ser- 
ved ;  or  at  least,  some  memorial  of  such  writings 
would  have  been  handed  down,  in  those  churches 
to  which  they  were  adi.li'essed.  These  churches 
received  and  preserved  the  Canonical  books,  of 
those  whose  writings  we  have,  and  why  should 
they  neglect,  or  suffer  to  sink  into  oblivion,  simi- 
lar writings  of  apostles,  from  whom  they  first  re- 
ceived the  Gospel  ? 

Indeed,  after  all,  this  argument  is  merely  hypo- 
thetical, and  wouM  be  sufficient  to  answer  the  ob- 
jections which  might  be  made,  if  it  could  be  proved, 
that  some  inspired  vvriti  gs  had  perished  ;  but,  in 
fact,tliere  is  no  proof  that  any  such  ever  existed.  It 
is,  therefore,  highly  probable,  that  we  are  in  acuial 
pi  ssession  of  all  the  books  penned  under  the  ple- 
nary inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

-*  Meletem.  De  Vita  Pauli. 


103 

4.  The  last  remark  which  I  shnll  make  in  re- 
lation to  the  hook«  of  the  Old  Testament  suppt.sed 
to  he  lost,  is,  that  it  is  hi2;hly  probable,  that  we  have 
several  of  them  now  in  the  Canon,  under  another 
name.  The  books  of  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chroni- 
cles, were,  probably,  not  written  by  one,  but  by  a 
succession  of  prophets. 

There  is  reason  to  believe,  that  until  the  Canon 
of  Sacred  Scripture  was  closed,  the  succession  of 
prophets  was  never  interrupted.  Whatever  was 
necCvSsary  to  be  added,  by  way  of  explanation,  to 
any  book  already  received  into  the  Canon,  they 
were  competent  to  annex  ;  or,  whatever  annals  or 
histories,  it  was  the  purpose  of  God  to  hive  trans- 
mit'ed  to  posterity,  they  would  be  directed  and  in- 
spired to  prepare.  Thus,  different  par's  of  these 
books,  might  have  been  penned  hy Gad,  Nathan, 
Iddo^  Shemaiah,,  &c. 

That  some  parts  of  these  histories  were  prepared 
by  prophets,  we  have  clear  proof,  in  one  instance  ; 
for,  Isaiah  has  inserted  in  his  prophecy,  several 
chapters,  which  are  contained  in  2  Kings,  and 
which,  I  think,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  were  origi- 
nally written  by  himself.  * 

The  Jewish  doctors  are  of  opinion,  that  the  book 
of  Jasher,  is  one  of  the  books  of  the  Pentateucii, 
or  the  whole  Law. 


*  See  2  Kings  xviii.  .yx.  .xx.  Compared  v.ilh  Isaiah  xxxvi. 
■xxxvii.  xxxviii. 


104 

The  book  of  the  wars  of  tlie  Lovrl,  has  by  ma- 
ny, been  sMppused,  to  be  no  other  than  the  book  of 
Numbers. 

Thi'S  I  think,  it  sufficiently  appears,  from  an  ex- 
amination of  particulars,  that  there  exists  no  evi- 
dence, that  any  Canonical  bo.  k  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment has  been  lost.  To  \\  hi;h  we  may  add,  that 
there  are  many  general  considerations  of  great 
weight, which  go  to  pro\e,that no  pn-tof  the  Scrip- 
tures ^f  (he  Old  Testament  hnve  been  lost. 

The  first  is,  th:it  God  by  his  providence  would 
preserve  from  destruction,  books  given  by  in>-pira- 
tiiln,  ai'd  inter^ded  for  the  perpetual  instruction  of 
his  church.  It  is  reasonable  to  think,  that  he  would 
not  suffer  his  gracions purpose  to  be  frustrated:  and 
this  argument,  apriorl,  is  greatly  strengthened  by 
tl'C  f^ict,1hat  a  remarkable  providential  cnre  hns  lieen 
exercistd,  in  the  preservation  of  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
turtis.  It  is  trulv  w.indeiful,  that  so  many  books 
shoiild  have  bef^n  preserved  unmutilated,  throuij;h 
hundreds  and  thousands  of  years  ;  and  during  vi- 
cissitudes so  great  ;  and  especially,  when  powerful 
tyrants  were  so  desirous  of  annihil.Tting  the  reli- 
gion of  (he  Jews,  and  used  their  utmost  exertions 
to  destroy  their  sacred  books. 

Another  consideration  of  great  weight  is,  tlie 
reli;*;i'us,  and  even  scrupulous  care,  with  which 
the  Jews,  as  far  as  we  can  trace  the  history  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures,  have  \\  atched  overtheir  preser- 
vation.    There  can,  I  think,  be' little  doubt,  that 


105 

they  exercised  the  same  vigilance  during  that  pe- 
riod of  their  history,  of  which  we  have  no  monu- 
ments. 

Tlie  translation  of  tlicse  books  into  Greek,  is 
sufficient  to  show,  that  the  same  books  existed, 
nearly  two  hundred  years  before  the  advent  of 
Christ. 

And  above  all,  the  unqualified  testimony  to  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  Christ  and  his 
Apostles,  ought  to  satisfy  us,  tliat  we  have  lost 
none  of  the  inspired  books  of  the  Canon. 

The  Scriptures  are  constantly  referred  to,  and 
quoted  as  itilallible  authority,  by  them,  as  we  have 
before  shown.  These  oracles  were  committed  to 
the  Jews  as  a  sacred  deposit,  and  they  are  never 
charged  with  unfaithfulness,  in  this  trust.  The 
Scriptures  are  declared  to  have  been  written  for 
our  learning  ;  and  no  intimation  is  given  tiiat  tliey 
had  ever  been  mutilated,  or  in  any  degree  cor- 
rupted. 


SECTION*     VII, 


THE   ORAL  LAW    OF    THE   JEWS,    WITHOUT   FOUN- 
DATION. 

'  But  however  the  Jews  may  seem  to  agree  with 
us,  in  regard  to  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
this  concord  relates  only  to  the  written  law;  for, 
they  obstinately  persist  in  maintaining,  that  besides 
the  law  which  was  engraven  on  tables  of  stone; 
and  the  other  precepts,  and  ordinances,  which  were 
communicated  to  Moses,  and  were  ordered  to  be 
written,  God  gave  unto  him,  another  Law^  ex- 
planatory of  the  first,  which  he  was  commanded 
not  to  commit  to  writing,  but  to  deliver  down  by 
oral  tradition. 

The  account  which  the  Jewish  doctors  give  of 
the  first  communication  and  subsequent  delivery 
of  this  law,  is  found  in  the  Talmud.  It  is  there 
stated,  that  during  the  whole  day,  while  Moses  con- 
tinued on  the  mount,  he  was  learning  the  written 
law,  but  at  night  he  was  occupied  in  receiving  the 
oral  law. 

"When  Moses  descended  from  the  mount,  they 
say,  that  he  first  called  Aaron  into  his  tent,  and 
communicated  to  him  all  that  he  had  learned  of 


107 

this  oral  law,  then  he  placeil  him  on  his  i-ia;ht  hand; 
next  he  called  in  Eliezer  and  Ithamar,   the  sons  of 
Aaron,  and  repeated  the  whole  to  them;  on  which 
'.licy  also  took  their  scal^,  the  one  on  his  right  hand, 
the  other  on  his  left.     After  this  the   seventy  el- 
ders entered,  and  received  the  saaie  instruction,  as 
Aaron  and  his  sons.      And  finally,  the  same  com- 
inunicatiou  was  made  to  the  whole   multitude  of 
people.      Then   Moses    arose   and     departed,  and 
Aaron  who  had  now  heard  the  whole,    four  times, 
repeated  what  he  had  learned,  and  also  withdrew. 
In  the  same  manner,  Eliezer  and  Ithamar,  each  in 
turn,  went  over  the   same  j^round,   and  departed. 
And  finalh',  the  seventy  elders  repeated  the  whole 
to  the  people;  every  one  of  whom  delivered  what 
he  had  heard,  to  his  neis:hbour.      Thus,  according 
to  Maimonidks,  was  the  oral  law  first  ajiven. 

And  tlie  Jewish  account  of  its  transmission  to  po- 
sterity, is  no  less  particular.  They  pretend, that  JMo- 
ses,  when  forty  years  had  elapsed  from  the  time  of 
the  Israelites  leaving  Egypt,  called  all  the  people, 
and  telling  them  that  his  end  drew  near,  reques- 
ted,that  if  any  of  them  had  forgotten  aught  of  what 
he  had  delivered  to  them,  they  should  repair  to 
him,  and  he  would  repeat  to  them  anew  what  they 
niiglit  have  forgotten.  And  they  tell  us,  that  Irom 
tiie  first  day  of  the  eleventh  month,  to  the  sixth 
day  of  the  twelfth,  he  was  occupied  in  nothing 
else,  than  repeating  antl  explaining  the  law  to  the 
people. 


lOS 

But,  in  a  special  manner,  he  committed  this  law 
to  Joshua,  by  whom  it  was  communicated,  shortly 
before  his  death,  to  Phineas,  the  son  of  Eliezer  ; 
by  Phineas,  to  Eli  ;  by  Eli,  to  Samuel  ;  by  Sam- 
uel, to  David,  and  Ahijah  ;  by  Ahijah,  to  Elijah  ; 
by  Elijah,  to  Elisha  ;  by  Elisha,  to  Jehoiada  ;  by 
Jehoiada,  to  Zechariah  ;  by  Zechariah,  to  Hosca  ; 
by  Hosea,  to  Amos  ;  by  Amos,  to  Isaiah  ;  by  Isa- 
iah, to  Micah  ;  by  Micah,  to  Joel  ;  by  Joel,  to 
Nahum  ;  by  Nahum,  to  Habbakuk  ;  by  Habbakuk, 
to  Zephaniah  ;  by  Zephaniah,  to  Jeremiah  ;  by  Je' 
remiah,  to  Baruch  ;  by  Baruch,  to  Ezra,  the  presi- 
dent of  the  ^reat  synag02;ue.  By  Ezra,  this  law 
was  delivered  to  the  hi^h  priest,  Jaddua  ;  by  Jad- 
dua,  to  Antigonus  ;  by  Antig;onus,  to  Joseph  son 
of  John,  and  Joseph  son  of  Jehezer  ;  by  these  to 
Aristftbulus,  and  Joshua  the  son  of  Perechiah  ;  by 
them  toJudah  son  of  Tiboeus,and  Simeon  son  of  Sa- 
tah.  Thence  to  Shemaiah — To  Hillel — To  Sim- 
eon his  son;  supposed  to  have  been  the  same  who 
took  our  Saviour  in  his  arms,  in  the  temple,  when 
brought  thither  to  be  presented  by  his  parents. 
FromSimeun,  it  passed  to  Gamaliel,  tlie  preceptor, 
as  is  supposed,  of  Paul.  Then  to  Sineoi  his  son; 
and  finally,  to  the  son  of  Simeon,  Jui-ah  Hakka- 
DOSH,  by  whom  it  was  committed  to  writing. 

But,  although,  the  above  lisi  brings  down  an  un- 
broken succession,  from  Moses  to  Judah  the  Holy, 
yet  to  render  the  tradition  still  more  certain,  the 
Jewish  doctors  inform  us,  that  this  oral  law,  was 


109 

also  committed,  in  a  special  manner,  to  the  hi^h 
priests  ;  and  handed  down,  through  iheir  line,  un- 
til! it  was  committed  to  writing. 

Judah  Hakkadosh  was  the  president  of  the  Acad- 
emy at  Tiberias,  and  was  held  in  great  reputation 
for  his  sanctity,  from  which  circumstance,  he  recei- 
ved his  surnsime,fIakkado.^h,the  Holy  The  tem- 
ple being  now  desolate,  and  the  nation  scattered 
abroad,  it  was  feared,  lest  the  traditionary  law 
might  be  lost;  therefore  it  was  resolved,  to  pre- 
serve it  by  committing  it  to  writing.  Judah  the 
Holy,  who  lived  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  undertook  this  work,  and  digested  all  tlie 
traditions  he  could  collect,  in  six  books,  each  con- 
sisting of  several  tracts.  The  whole  number  is 
Sixty  three.  But  these  tracts  are  again  subdi- 
vided, into  numerous  chapters.  This  is  the  fa- 
mous MisHNA  of  the  Jews.  When  finished  it 
was  received  by  the  nation  with  the  highest  res- 
pect and  coafidence  ;  and  their  doctors  began,  forth- 
with, to  compose  commentaries,  on  every  part  of  it. 
These  comments  are  called  the  Geaiaka,  or  the 
COMPLETION  ;  and  the  Mishna  and  Gemara,  to- 
gether, form  the  Talmud.  But  as  this  work  of 
commenting  on  the  text  of  the  Mishna  was  pursu- 
ed,not  only  in  Judea,but  in  Babylonia, where  a  large 
number  of  Jews  resided;  hence  it  came  to  pass, 
that  two  Talmuds  were  formed  ;  the  one  called, 
the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  the  other,  the  Ba- 
jsYLgMsa  Talmud.  In  both  these;  the  iVIxsuj^A; 
*  2 


110 

committefl  to  writing  by  Judah,  is  the  text ;  but 
the  commentaries  are  widely  different.  The  for- 
mer was  completed  before  the  close  of  the  third  cent- 
ury ofthe  Christian  era;  the  latter,  was  not  complet- 
ed until  towards  the  close  of  the  fifth  century.  The 
Babylonish  Talmud  is  much  the  largest  ofthe  two; 
for  while  that  of  Jerusalem  has  been  printed  in  one 
folio  volume,  this  fills  twelve  folios.  This  last  is 
also  held,  in  much  higher  esteem,  by  the  Jews ; 
and  indeed  it  comprehends,  all  the  learning  and  re- 
ligion of  that  people,  since  they  have  been  cast  off" 
for  iheir  unbelief  and  rejection  of  the  true  Mes- 
siah. 

Maimonides  has  given  an  excellent   digest,   of 

all  the  laws  and  institutions,  enjoined  in  this  great 
■work. 

The  Jews  place  fully  as  much  faith  in  the  Tal- 
mud, as  they  do  in  the  Bible.  Indeed,  it  is  held 
in  much  greater  esteem,  and  the  reading  of  it  is 
much  more  encouraged.  It  is  a  saying  of  one  of 
their  most  esteemed  Rabbies,  "  That  the  oral  law 
is  the  foundation  of  the  written  ;  nor  can  the  writ- 
ten law  be  expounded,  but  by  the  oral."  Agree- 
ably to  this,  in  their  confession,  called,  the  golden 
altar,  it  is  said,  "  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  stand 
upon  tiie  foundation  of  our  holy  law,  which  is  the 
written  law,  unless  it  be  by  the  oral  law,  which  is 
the  exposition  thereof."  *In  the  Talmud  it  is  writ- 
en,  "Thit  tog  ve  attention  to  th  study  of  the 
Bible  is  some  virtue;  but  he  who  pays  attention  to 


Ill 

the  study  ol*  the  Mishna,  possesses  a  virtue  which 
shall  receive  a  reward;  and  he  who  occupies  him- 
self in  reading  the  Gemara,  has  a  virtue,  than 
which,  there  is  none  more  excellent."  Nay,  they 
go  to  the  impious  length  of  saying,  "That  he  who 
is  employed  in  the  study  of  the  Bible  and  nothing 
else,  does  but  waste  his  time."  They  maintain, 
that  if  the  declarations  of  this  oral  law  be  ever  so 
inconsistent  with  reason  and  common  sense,  they 
must  be  received  with  implicit  faith,  "  You  must 
not  depart  from  them,"  says  Rabbi  Sol.  Jarchi, 
"  if  they  should  assert  that  your  right  hand  is  your 
left;  or  your  left  your  right. "  And  in  the  Tal- 
mud it  is  taught,  "  That,  to  sin  against  the  words 
of  the  scribes,  is  far  more  grievous  than  to  sin 
against  the  words  of  the  Law."  "My  son  attend 
raiher  to  the  words  of  the  scribes,  than  to  the  words 
of  the  Law."  *' The  text  Oi'the  liible  is  like  water, 
but  the  Mishna  is  like  wine  ;"  with  many  other 
similar  comp.ii  iaons. 

Without  the  oral  law,  they  assert,  that  the  writ- 
ten law  remains  in  perfect  darkness  :  for,  say  they, 
"There  are  many  things  in  Scripture,  which  are 
contradictory,  and  which  can  in  no  way  be  recoii- 
cileti,  but  by  the  oral  law,  which  Moses  received 
in  Mount  Sinai."  In  conformity  with  these  senti- 
ments, is  the  conduct  of  the  Jews,  until  this  day. 
Their«learned  men  spend  almost  all  their  time,  in 
p'.ring  over  tlie  Talmud  ;  and  he,  among  them,  who 
knows  must  ui  the  coniunts  of  this  monstrous  lar- 


112 

rago  of  lies  and  nonsense,  is  esteemed  the  most 
learned  man.  In  consequence  of  their  implicit 
faith  in  this  oral  law,  it  becomes  almost  useless  to 
reason  with  the  Jews  out  of  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament.  It  is  a  matter  of  real  importance, 
therefore,  to  show,  that  this  whole  fabric  rests  on  a 
sandy  foundation  ;  and  to  dfemonstrate,  that  there 
is  no  evidence,  whatsoever,  that  any  such  law  was 
ever  given  to  Moses,  on  Sinai.  To  this  subject, 
therefore,  I  would  now  solicit  the  attention  of  the 
reader. 

Here  then,  let  it  be  observed,  that  we  have  no 
controversy  with  the  Jews  concerning  the  written 
law,  Moral,  Ceremonial,  or  Political :  nor  do  we 
deny  that  Mo^es  received  from  God  on  Mount  Sinai, 
some  explication  of  the  written  law.  But  what 
we  maintain,  is,  that  this  exposition  did  not  form 
a  second  distinct  law  ;  that  it  was  not  the  same  as 
the  oral  law  of  the  Jews,  contained  in  the  Tal- 
mud ;  that  it  was  not  received  by  Moses  in  a  dis- 
tinct form  from  the  writien  law,  and  attended  with 
a  prohibition  to  commit  it  to  writing. 

In  support  of  these  positions,  we  solicit  the  at- 
tention of  the  impartial  reader,  to  the  following  ar- 
guments : — 

1.  There  is  not  the  slis;htest  mention  of  any  such 
law  in  all  the  sacred  records ;  neither  of  its  original 
communication  to  Moses,  nor  of  its  transmission  to 
posterity,  in  the  way  ptetendcd  by  the  Jews. 
Now,  we  ask,  is  it  probable,  that  if  such  a  law  had 


US 

been  given,  there  should  never  have  been  any  Iiint 
of  the  matter,  nor  the  least  reference  to  it,  in  the 
whole  Bible?  Certainly,  this  total  silence  of  Sorip- 
tnic  is  very  little  favourable  to  the  doctrine  of  an 
oral  law.  Maimonides,  does  indeed,  pretend  to 
find  a  reference  to  it,  in  Exodus  xxix,  12.  I  will 
give  you  saith  the.  Lord,,  a  law,  and  common d- 
ment ;  by  the  first  of  these  he  understands,  ihe 
written  law,  and  by  the  last,  the  oral.  But  if  he 
had  only  attended  to  the  words  next  ensuin^;,  lie 
would  never  have  adduced  this  text  in  confiim:ni'jn 
of  an  oral  law  ;  luhich  I  have  written  (hut  thou 
mayest  teach  them.  And  we  know  that  it  is  very 
common  to  express  the  written  law  by  both  these 
terms,  as  well  as  by  several  others  of  the  same  im- 
port. Now  if  no  record  exists  of  such  a  law  hav- 
ing; been  given  to  JNIoses,  huw  can  we,  at  tliis  late 
period,  be  satisfied  of  the  fact  ?  If  it  was  never 
heard  of  for  more  than  two  thousand  years  after- 
wards, what  evidence  is  thrre  that  it  ever  existed. 

2.  Again,  we  know,  that  in  the  time  of  king 
Josiah,  the  written  law  which  had  been  lost,  was 
found  again.  How  great  wjs  the  consterna'i  )n 
of  the  pious  king  and  his  court,  on  this  occasion  ! 
How  memorable  the  history  of  this  flict!  But  u  hat 
became  of  the  oral  law,  during  this  period  .''  Is  it 
reasonable  to  think,  that  this  would  remain  unin- 
jured through  successive  ages  of  idolatry,  when 
the  written  law  was  so  entirely  rfjeoli-d  ?  If  they 
had  iorgoiien  wlial  was  in  their  wriuen  law,  would. 


114 

they  be  likely  to  retain  that  which  was  oral  ?    If 
the  written    law  was  lost,  would   the  traditionary 
law  be   preserved  ?     And    if  this  was  at  any  time 
lost,  how  could  it  be  recovered  ?     Not   from  the 
written  law,  for  this  does  not  contain  it;    not  from 
the  memory  of  man,   for  the  supposition  is,  that 
it  was  thence   obhterated.      If  then,   this  law,   by 
any  chance,   was  once  lost,  it  is  manifest,   that  it 
could  never  be  recovered,  but  by  divine  revelation. 
And  when  we  survey  the  history  of  tlie  Jews,  is  it 
conceivable,  that  such  a  body  of  law,  as  that  con- 
tained in  the  Talmud,  immensely  larger  than  the 
written  law,   could   have    been   preserved  entire, 
through  so  many  generations,  merely  by  oral  com- 
munication ?     The  Jews,  indeed,  amuse  us  with  a 
^able,  on  this  subject.      They  tell  us  that  while  the 
Israelites  mourned  on  account  of  the  death  of  Mo- 
ses, they  forgot  three  thousand  of  these  traditions, 
which  were  recovered  by  the  ingenuity  of  Othniel 
the   son    of  Kenaz.       This   is   ridiculous  enough. 
What  a  heap  of  traditions   must  that   have   been, 
from  which  three   thousand   could  be  lost  at  once? 
And  how^  profound   the  genius  of  Othniel,  which 
was  able  to  bring  to  light  such  a  multitude  of  pre- 
cepts, after  they  had   been  completely  forgotten  ? 
But  the  proof  of  this  fact   is  more  ludicrous   still. 
It  is  derived  from  Joshua  xv.  16,  17.     ^nd  Ca- 
leb said,  he  that  smiteth  Kirjath-Sepher,    and 
taketh  it,  to  him  loill  I  irive  Achsuh  my  daugh- 
ter to  wife,     t/ind  Othniel  the  soil  of  Kenaz,  the 


115 

brother  of  Caleb,    took  H  :    and  he  gave   hint 
Jiehsah  his  ({(ins^htcr  to  wife. 

Tlie  iinleiirin'tl  reader  slutuld  be  informed  that 
Kirjath-Sepher,  means,  the  cittf  nf  tfie  book. 

Kilt,  who  retr.ined  the  oral  law  safely  preserved 
in  his  memor}',  during  the  I0112;  reign  of  INIanasseh; 
and  during  the  reign  of  Amon,  and  of  Josiah  ? 
AVhere  was  (hat  law,  during  the  seventy  years  cap- 
tivity, in  Babylon?  Have  we  not  a  word  to  in- 
form us  of  the  fate  of  this  law,  in  all  the  histories 
of  those  times  ?  What,  is  there  not  a  hint  concern- 
ing the  preservation  of  a  deposit  so  precious,  as 
this  law  is  pretended  to  be  ?  We  must  say  again, 
that  this  continued  silence  of  Scripture,  through  a 
period  of  so  many  hundreds  of  years,  speaks  liille 
in  favour  of  the  unwritten  law. 

3.  The  Jews  agiun  inform  us,  that  tliis  law  was 
prohibited  to  be  written  ;  but  whence  do  they  de- 
rive the  proof  of  this  assertion  ?  Let  the  evidence,  if 
there  be  any,  be  produced.  Must  we  have  recourse 
to  the  oral  law  itself,  for  testimony  ?  Be  it  so.  But 
why  then  is  it  now  written,  and  has  been,  for  more 
than  fifteen  hundred  years  .'  In  the  Talmud,  it  is 
said,  <'  The  words  of  the  written  law,  it  is  not  law- 
ful for  you  to  commit  to  oral  tradition  ;  nor  the 
words  of  the  oral  law  to  writing."  And  Sol.  Jar- 
HCi  says,  ''  Neither  is  it  lawful  to  write  the  oral 
law."  Now  we  say,  there  was  a  law  containing 
such  a  prohibition,  or  there  was  not.  If  the  form- 
er, then  the  Talmudisls  liavc  transgressed  a  positive 


lie 

precept  of  this  law,  in  committing  it  to  writing; 
if  the  latter,  then  tlieir  Talmud  and  their  Rabbies 
speak  falsely.     Let  them  choose,  in  this  dilemma. 

4.  But  it  can  be  proved,  that  whatever  laws  Mo- 
ses received  from  God,  the  same  he  was  command- 
ed to  write.  It  is  said,  tdnd  Moses  came  and  told 
the  people  all  the  words  of  the  Lord. — Jind  Mo- 
^es  wrote  all  the  words  of  the  Lord. 

And  again,  it  is  said,  Jlnd  the  Lord  said  to 
Moses,  write  these  loords,  for  according  to  these 
tvords,  have  I  made  a  covenant  ivith  you  and 
ivith  Israel.  And  it  is  worthy  of  particular  obser- 
vation, that  wherever  the  people  are  called  upon 
to  obey  the  law  of  the  Lord,  no  mention  is  made 
of  any  other  than  the  written  law.  Thus  Moses, 
\\hen  his  end  approached,  made  a  speech  unto  the 
people  ;  after  which  it  is  added.  And  Moses  wrote 
this  law  and  delivered  it  unto  the  priests  the  sons 
of  Levi,  ivhich  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of 
the  Lord,  and  unto  all  the  elders  of  Israel. 
And  Moses  commanded  tJiem  saying,  At  the 
end  of  every  seven  years,  in  the  solemnity  of  the 
year  of  release,  in  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  when 
all  Israel  is  come  to  appear  before  the  Lord  thy 
God,  in  the  place  ivhich  he  shall  choose,  thou 
shall  read  it  before  all  Israel  in  their  hear- 
ing. 

Here,  observe,  there  is  no  mention  of  any  other 

*  Exod.  xxiv.  3,  4.      xxxiv.  27,  28.      Deut.  xxxi.  9,  24, 


117 

but  the  written  law.  There  is  no  direction  to  re- 
peat the  oral  law,  at  this  time  of  leisure  ;  but  sure- 
ly it  was  more  necessary  to  command  the  people 
to  do  this,  if  there  had  been  such  a  law,  than  to 
hear  the  written  law  which  they  might  read  from 
time  to  time. 

In  the  time  of  Ahaz,  tlie  sacred  historian  informs 
us,  That  the  Lord  testified  against  Israel  and 
against  Judah,  by  ail  the  prophets,  and  by  all 
the  seers,  saying,  turn  ye  from  your  evil  way Sf 
and  keep  my  commandments  and  my  statutesy 
according  to  all  the  law  which  I  commanded 
your  fathers,  and  which  I  sent  luito  you  by  my 
servants  the  prophets. 

Now  it  is  very  manifest,  that  the  law  which  they 
are  reproved  for  breaking,  was  the  written  law  ; 
for  in  the  same  chapter,  we  have  the  Ibilowing  ex- 
hortation ;  ^nd  the  statutes,  and  the  ordinances, 
and  the  law,  and  the  commandments  which  he 
WKOTE  for  you,  ye  shall  observe  to  do  for  ever- 
more. 

The  prophets  continually  refer  the  people  to  the 
law  and  to  the  testimony,  and  declare,  if  they 
speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because 
there  is  no  light  in  them. 

When  Jchoshaphit  set  about  reforming  and  in- 
structing th'pLople,and  seton  foot  an  important  mis- 
sion, consisting  of  princes  and  levites,  to  teach  them, 

2  Kings  xvii.  13,  37. 


lis 


they  confined  themselves  to  what  was  written  in  the 
Scriptures,  And  they  taught  in  Judali,  and  had 
the  book  of  the  laiu  of  the  Lord  with  them,  and 
toent  about  through  all  the  cities  ofJudah,  and 
taught  the  people. 

So   also  Ezra,  when   he  instructed  the  people, 
who  had  returned  from   Babylon,   made  use  of   no 
other  than  the  written  law  ;  Jind  Ezra  the  priest 
brought  the  law  before  the  congregation,  both  of 
men  and  women,   and  all  that  could  hear  with 
understanding. — And  he  read  therein  before  the 
street,  that  was  before  the  lo at e.r  gate,  from  the 
morning  nntil  m,id-day,  before  the  men  and  the 
tvomen,  and  those  that  could  understand  :    and 
the  ears  of  all  the  people  were  attentive  unto  the 
hook  of  Me  law — And  Ezra  stood  upon  a  pulpit 
of  wood,  which  they  had  made  for  the  jnirpose  ; 
— And  Ezra  opened  the  book  in  sight  of  all  the 
people,  and  when  he  ojiened  it,  all  the  people  stood 
up.     And  the  priests  and  the  Levites  caused  the 
people   to   understand  the  law  ; — And  they  read 
in  the  book,  in  the  laio  of  God  distinctly,  and 
gave  the  sense,  and  caused  the  peojyle  to  under- 
stand the  reading. 

5.   Besides,  the  written  law  is  pronounced  to  be 

perfect,  so  that  nothing  need,  or  could  be  added  to 

it,    therefore  the  oral  law  was  superfluous.       The 

luiv  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul. 

Ye  shall  not  add  unto  the  word  ivhich  I  command 

2  Chron.  xvii.  9.         Neh.  viii.  2,  3,  4,  5,  7,  8. 
Psalm  xix.  8.  Deut.  iv.  1,  2. 


119 

f/ou,neither  shall  yc  diminish  ought  from  it,  thai 
ye  may  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord 
your  God  which  F com.mand you. 

It  is  not  a  valid  objection  wliich  they  bring 
against  this  argument,  that  Christians  add  the  gos- 
pel to  the  law  ;  for  this  is  not,  properly  speaking, 
a  new  law.  The  gospel  is  a  promise  of  grace  and 
salvation.  The  precepts  of  the  law  are,  indeed, 
spcciall}'  employed  in  the  gospel,  to  a  purpose  for 
which  they  \v(  re  not  originally  intended  :  but  the 
gospel,  in  whatever  light  it  may  be  viewed,  is 
committed  to  writing,  and  no  part  of  it  left  to  de- 
pend on  oial  tradition. 

6.  In  the  numerous  exhortations  and  injunction^ 
of  Almighty  God,  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament, 
there  is  not  an  instance  of  any  one  being  command- 
ed to  do  any  thing,  not  contained  in  the  written 
law,  which  proves,  that,  either  there  was  no  other 
law  in  existence,  or  that  obedience  to  it  was  not  re- 
quired ;  and  if  obedience  was  not  required,  then, 
certainly,  there  was  no  law.* 

Moreover,  many  of  the  .Tews,thcmselves,ooncur 
with  us.  in  rejecting  tiie  oral  law.  The  chief  ad- 
vocates of  traditions  were  the  Pharis-es,  who  arose 
out  of  Iho  schools  of  Ilillc'l  and  Sliammai,  that  lived 
after  the  times  of  the  Maccabees.      On  this. subject, 

*  It  would  be  tedious  to  refer  to  all  the  texts  in  which 
commands  and  exhortations  arc  {riven,  but  the  reader  may 
consult  the  folIowin<r:  Dcut.  x.  12,  1:1.  xi.  32.  xxviii.  1. 
XXX.  20.  xxix  9,  20.  xxxi. 4,5,  '\r,.  Jo.?h.  i.  7.  xxiii.  0.  2King8 
xiv.  r..  2  Chroji.xxv.  4.  xxx.  1«. 


120 

we  have  the  testimony  of  Jerome,  who  says, 
"Shammai  and  Hillel,  from  whom  arose  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  not  long  before  the  birth  of  Christ ; 
the  first  of  whom  was  called  the  dissipator,  and 
the  last,  profane  ;  because,  by  their  traditions, 
they  destroyed  the  law  of  God."*  But  on  this 
point,  the  Sadducees  were  opposed  to  the  Phari- 
sees, and  according  to  Josephus,  rejected  all  tradi- 
tions, adhering  to  the  Scriptures  alone.  With 
them  agreed  the  Samaritans,  and  Essenes.  The 
Karaites  also,  received  the  written  word,  and  re- 
iected  all  traditions  ;  although,  in  other  respects, 
they  did  not  agree  with  the  Sadducees.  And  in  con- 
sequence of  this,  they  are  hated  and  reviled  by  the 
other  Jews,  so  that  it  is  not  without  great  difficul- 
ty that  they  will  receive  a  Karaite  into  one  of  their 
synagogues.  Of  this  sect,  there  are  still  some  re- 
mainino-,  in  Poland,  Russia,  Turkey,  and  Africa. 
It  now  remains  to  mention  the  arguments  by 
which  the  Jews  attempt  to  establish  their  oral  law. 
These  shall  be  taken  from  Manasseh  bkn  Israel, t 
one  of  their  most  learned  and  liberal  men.  He 
argues  from  the  necessity  of  an  oral  law,to  explain 
many  parts  of  the  written  law.  To  confirm  this 
opinion,  he  adduces  several  examples,  as  Exodus 
xii.  2.  This  month,  shall  be  unto  you  the  begin- 
ning- of  months,  it  shall  be  the  first  month  of 
the  year.  On  this  text  he  remarks,  «'That  the 
name  of  the  month  is  not  mentioned.     It  is  not 

*  In  Jesa    viii.         I  Condi.  In  Exod. 


121 

said,  whether  I  lie  months  were  lunar  or  solar, 
"both  of  which  were  in  ancient  use  ;  and  yet  with- 
out knowinjj;  this,  the  precept  could  not  be  observ- 
■ed.  The  same  ditiiculty  occurs,  in  regard  to  the 
other  annual  feasts." 

*♦  Another  example  is  taken  from  Lev.  xi.  13, 
where  it  is  commandetl,  that  unclean  birds  shall  not 
be  eaten,  and  yet  we  are  not  furnished  with  any 
criteria,  by  which  to  distinguish  the  clean  from  the 
unclean,  as  in  the  case  of  beasts.  A  third  exam- 
ple is  from  Exod.  xxi.  29,  Let  no  man  go  out 
o/ his  place  on  the  seventh  day,  and  yet  we  are 
not  informed,  whether  he  was  forbidden  to  leave 
his  house,  his  court,  his  city,  or  his  suburbs.  So, 
in  Lev.  xxi  1^,  the  priest  is  forbidden  to  go  out 
of  the  Sanctuari/,  and  no  time  is  limited,  hut 
we  know  that  the  residence  of  the  priests  was 
without  the  precincts  of  the  tcmj)le,  and  that  they 
strved  there,  in  rotation." 

''Again,  in  Lxod.  xx.  10,  all  work  is  prohibited 
on  thf  sabbath,  but  circumcision  is  commanded  to 
be  performed  on  theeiglitii  day  ;  and  ii  is  no  where 
declared,  whether  this  rile  should  be  deferred, 
when  the  eighth  day  occui-red  on  the  sabbath. 
The  same  dlfllCll^ly  t-xists  in  r«:gard  to  the  sl;iyin"- 
of  the  pasch.i:  laitd),  which  was  coiilined  by  t!ie 
law  to  thefjui  teenth  day  oi  the  month,  an<l  we  are 
no  wh  ri!  intVirmt^d  wha^  was  to  be  dofie,  when  this 
was  the  sa  )biiir'  "  1  i  Dent.  xxiv.  we  have  •,  a- 
ny  lawa  reJaung  to  marriage,  buL  we  are  i\o  wiiere 
L  2 


122 

informed  what  ronstitutcd  a  legal  marriase,'^  ''lu 
t!ie  feast  of  the  Tabernacles,  beautiful  branches  of 
trees  are  directed  t)  be  used,  but  the  species  of  tree 
is  not  mentioned.  And  in  the  Feast  of  Weeks,  it 
is  commanded,  that  on  the  fiftieth  day,  theivave- 
sheaf  should  be  offered  from  their  habitations  ; 
but  where  it  should  be  offered,  is  not  said.  And, 
finally,  amon^  proliibited  marriages,  tlie  wife  of  an 
uncle  is  never  mentioned." 

In  these,  and  many  other  instances,  the  learned 
Jew  observes,  that  the  law  could  only  be  under- 
stood by  such  oral  tradition,  as  he  supposes  accom- 
panied the  written  law. 

Now,in  answer  to  these  things,  we  observe, first, 
in  the  general,  that  however  many  difficulties  may 
be  started  respecting  the  precise  meaning  of  many 
parts  of  the  law,  these  can  never  prove  the  exist- 
ence of  an  oral  law.  The  decision  on  these  points 
might  have  been  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  wor- 
shippers, or  to  the  common  sense  of  the  people. 
Besides,  many  things  may  appear  obscure  to  us, 
which  were  not  so  to  the  ancient  Israelites  ;  so 
that  they  might  have  needed  no  oral  law  to  explain 
them. 

Again,  it  is  one  thing  to  expound  a  law,  and  ano- 
ther to  add  something  to  it :  but  the  oral  law  for 
which  they  plead,  is  not  a  mere  exposition,  but  an 
additional  law. 

It  is  one  thing  to  avail  ourselves  of  traditions  to 
'interpret  a  law,  and  another  to  receive  them  as  di- 


123 

vine,  and  absolutely  necessary.  We  do  not  deny, 
that  nnny  things  may  be  pcrfornr-d  accordiiii;  to 
ancient  custom,  or  the  traditions  of  proocdinu;  'Ji;r:s, 
in  things  indiflerent  ;  bnt  uc  do  den}  , that  these  can 
be  considered  as  divine,  or  nccessnrv. 

l>ut  particularly,  wo  answer,  that  the  alleged 
difficulty  about  the  name  of  the  month,  has  no  ex- 
istence, for  it  can  be  very  well  ascertained  fr  )ni 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  ;  and  in  Exod.  xiii. 
the  month  is  named.  The  civil  year  of  the  Jeu's 
began  with  the  month  Tisri,  hut  the  Ecclesiastical, 
with  Abib.  Therein,  in  fact,  no  grca'er  difTicuity 
here,  than  in  any  other  case,  wjiere  the  ciiTum- 
stance  of  time  is  mentioned.  Tliere  was  no  need 
of  understanding  the  method  of  reducing  solar  and 
lunar  years  into  one  another,  to  decide  this  matter. 
And  if  the  Talmud  be  examined  on  this  point, 
where  the  oral  law  is  supposed  to  be  now  contain- 
ed, there  will  be  found  there,  no  satisfactory  me- 
thod of  computing  time.  And,  indeed,  the  Tal- 
mudic  doctors  are  so  far  from  being  agreed  on  this 
subject,  that  any  thing  else  may  be  found  sooner, 
thsn  a  law  regulating  tins  matter,  in  the  Talmud. 

And  in  regard  to  the  unclean  binls,  why  w:is  it 
necessary  ti  have  criteria  to  distinguish  them> 
since  a  catalogue  of  them  is  given  in  the  very  pas- 
sage to  which  reference  is  made.  And  I  would 
ask,  does  the  pretended  oral  law  contain  any  such 
criteria  to  direct  in  this  case  ?  Nothing  less.  The 
difficulty  about  the  people  leaving  their  place  on 


124 

the  sabbath,  and  the  priests  leaving  the  temple, 
is  really  too  trifling;  to  require  any  serious  consid- 
eration. And  as  to  what  should  be  done  when  the 
day  of  circumcising  a  child,  oi'  of  killing  the  pass- 
over  happened  on  the  Sabbath,  it  is  a  point  easily 
decided.  These  positive  institutions  ought  to  have 
been  observed,  on  whatever  day  they  occurred. 

The  question  respecting  matrimony, should  rather 
provoke  a  smile,  than  a  serious  answer  ;  for  who  is 
ignorant,  what  constitutes  a  lawful  marriage?  Or 
who  would  suppose  that  the  ceremonies  attend- 
ant on  this  transaction  ought  to  be  prescribed  by 
the  law  of  God  ;  or,  thatanother  law  was  requisite 
for  the  purpose.  As  well  might  our  learned  Jew, 
insist  on  the  necessitj'  of  an  Oral  Law,  t-o  teach  us 
how  we  should  eat,  drink,  and  perform  our  daily 
work. 

If  the  law  prescribed  heautifnl  branches  of  trees, 
to  be  nsed  in  the  Feast  ot  Tabt.rnaclrs.  what  need 
wa<  tliere  of  ju  oral  law,  to  teach  a  ly  thing  more. 
If  such  branches  were  nse'l,it  was  of  course  indiffer- 
ent, whether  they  were  of  this  or  that  species. 

Eq'ia'lv  futile  are  the  other  ariiuments  of  the  au- 
thor,  ml  ne>'d  not  be  answ;  ;•  d  in  detatl. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  thove  is  no  evidence, 
thatO"d  ever  L^ave  any  law  t'>  Moses,  distinct  from 
that  which  is  writb-n  in  the  Pfniateuch.  And 
there  is  good  reason  to  believe,  that  vhc  vari  us  Invs 
found  in  th'!  Mi-hna,  wer-  n  ;ver  ree.  iv  •.  fiOai 
God,  nor  derived  by  tradition  from  iVioses  ;  but 


125 

were  traditions  of  the  Fathers,  such  as  were  in  use 
in  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  who  severely  reprehends 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  for  settjng  aside,  and  ren- 
dering of  no  effect,  the  word  of  God,  by  their  unau- 
thorized traditions. 

The  internal  evidence  is  itself  sufficient  to  con- 
vince us,  that  the  laws  of  the  Talmud  are  human 
inventions,  and  not  divine  institutions  ;  except,that 
those  circumstances  of  divine  worship  which  were 
left  to  the  aiscrttion  of  the  i}eople,  and  which  were 
regulated  by  custom, may  be  often  found  preserved^ 
ill  this  immense  work. 


PART  )^  >E. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


^^■7 


SECTIOU     I. 

3IETII0D  OF  SETTLING  THE   CANON    OF    THE  NFW 
TESIAMENT. 

At  first  view,  it  would  seem,  that  there  would  bd 
fouiul  much  !es>  diliiculty  in  determiii  11115  ^'^^  Canon 
of  the  New  'restunuut,ihan  thai  of  the  Old  ;  seeing 
the  books  v\hich  comijose  the  former  are  much 
more  recent,  than  those  of  the  latter.  And  we  have 
historical  records,  which  reach  up  to  the  time, 
when  tn^iDiinon  of  the  New  Testament  was  form- 
ed, but  in  regard  to  most  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Fest- 
aiiiciiljtiicro  are  extant  no  coilaleril  documenls,iior 
any  autnentic  h'storics,  which  j>;o  back  to  a  j)eriod 
within  some  liundrcd  years  of  the  time,  when  tiiey 
weie  jjenned.  But  houever  plausible  tbis  may  ap- 
pear, It  is  entirely  fallacious  ;  and,  when  we  come 
to  examine  into  the  Canonical  aulliority  of  the 
books  of  tlie  New  Tertament,  much  greater  dilBcuI- 
ties  are  found  to  exist,  tlian  were  e  icountered,  in 
esiasjiisiiing  the  Canon  of  the  OkI  Testament.  The 
reasons  of  this  dillerence,  aie,  such  as  these; 

1.  ^w^i.  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  settled 
by  Ezra,  an  inspired  m:ui,  but  the  books  of  the 
iM'exv  I'cstatneiit  were  collected  into  the  Canon, 
after  inspiration  had  ceased,  in  the  Ciinsnan 
cimrch. 

M 


130 

2.  The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  received 
the  sanction  f)f  Christ  and  his  apostles,  but  when 
the  Canon  oftlie  New  Testament  was  completed,  all 
the  apostles  were  dead. 

3.  The  number  of  Apocryphal  books  which 
claim  admission  into  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  inconsiderable,  and  the  invalidity  of  their 
title,  easily  demonstrated  ;  but  the  Apocryphal 
books  ol  the  New  Testament  are  very  numerous  ; 
and  some  of  ihem  have  a  much  higher  claim  to  Ca- 
nonical authority,  than  any  of  those  obscure 
books,  which  claim  admittance  into  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 

Toland  in  his  famous  catalogue  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  lays  in  a  claim  for  more  than 
eighty,  which  he  pretends  ought  to  be  received  in- 
to the  Canon. 

While  there  was  a  universal  agreement,  in 
the  primitive  church,  in  regard  to  the  Canonical 
authority  of  most  of  the  books  of  the  New  'J'es- 
tanient,  there  were  some  who  doubted,  res- 
pecting the  Epistle  of  James,  The  Second  of  Pe- 
ter, The  Second  and  Third  of  John,  The  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  and  ihe  R(  veiaiion. 

4.  There  has  been,  moreover,  much  more  doubt 
and  controversy  respecting  some  of  the  genuine 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  than  ever  existed  in 
regard  to  any  contained  in  the  Jewish  Canon. 

5.  While  some  of  the  ancient  Fathers  disputed 
the  right  of  some  t  f  the  books  which  have  been 
received  into  the  Canon,  some  modern  doctors,  of 


131 

wo  inconsulerable  learning;,  have  been  of  opinion, 
that  several,  which  were  formerly  excluded,  oiip;ht 
yet  to  he  receiveil.  This  opinion  was  explicitly 
declared  hy  archbishop  Wake,  and  Mr.  VVhiston, 
to  ^ay  nothing  about  Toland,  who  was  an  enemy  to 
the  gospel.* 

6.  To  all  which  we  may  add, that  some  moderns, 
of  great  name,  have  expressed  doubts  respecting 
some  of  the  books  now  in  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Tesiani'Mit  ;  as  Lutlier,  for  a  while,  rejected  tiie 
Epistle  of  James  :  and  Erasmus,  Calvin,  Cajetan, 
and  Kirslenius,  hesitated  respecting  the  authority 
of  the  book  of  Revelation  :  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  re- 
jected this  book  from  the  Canon, and  expressed  him- 
self very  unfavourably  respecting  the  gospels  of 
iVIark  and   Luke. 

After  vvhat  has  been  said,  in  the  former  part  of 
this  work,  respecting  the  importance  of  settling  the 
Canon  on  correct  principles,  it  will  be  unnecessary 
to  add  any  thing  here  on  that  subjVct,  except  to  say, 
that  this  inquiry  cannot  be  less  interesting  in  rc- 
gird  to  the  New  Testao'ent,  than  to  the  Old.  It  is 
a  subject  which  calls  for  our  utmost  diligence  and 
impartialty.  It  is  one  which  we  cannot  neglect 
with  a  gool  conscience  ;  for  the  inquiry  is  nothing 
less  tlian  to  ascertain,  what  revelation  God  has 
made  to  us,  ami  where  it  is  to  be  found. 

And,    as  to   tlic  proper  method   of  settling   the 

•  Soc  Jones  on  tlic  Canon. 


132 

Canon  of  the  New  Testament, the  same  course  must 
be  pursued,  as  has  been  done,  in  respect  to  the  Old. 
We  must  have  recourse  to  authentic  history,  and 
endeavour  to  ascertain,  what  books  were  received 
as  genuine,  by  the  primitive  church  and  early 
Fathers.  The  conlemporaries,  and  immediate  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles,  are  the  most  competent 
witnesses,  in  this  case.  If  amon:^  these,  there  is 
found  to  have  been  a  general  agreement,  as  to  what 
books  were  Canonical,  it  will  go  far  to  satisfy  us 
respecting  the  true  Canon  ;  for  it  cannot  be  suppos- 
ed, that  they  could  easily  be  deceived  in  a  matter 
of  this  sort.  A  general  consent  of  the  CArly  Fathers, 
and  of  the  primitive  church,  therefore,  furnishes 
conclusive  evidence,  on  this  point ;  and  is  that  spe- 
cies of  evidence,  which  is  least  liable  to  fallacy,  or 
abuse.  The  learned  Huet,  hns,  therefore,  assum- 
ed it  as  a  maxim,  That  every  book  is  genuine, 
which  was  esteemed  genuine,  by  those  who  lived 
nearest  to  the  time  when  it  loas  written,  and  by 
the  ages  following,  in  a  continued  series.*  The 
reasona^ileness  of  this  rule  will  appear  more  evident, 
when  we  consider  the  great  esteem  with  which 
these  books  were  at  first  received  ;  the  constant 
public  reading  of  them  in  the  churches  ;  and  the 
carl}"  version  of  them,  info  other  languages. 

The  high  claims  of  the  Romish  church,  in  regard 
to  the  authority  of  fixing  the  Canon,   has  already 

*  Demonstratio  Evang-. 


lS.T 

bern  disprnvcl,  as  it  relates  to  the  bonks  of  the 
Old  Testmnent  ;  and  the  same  arsjuments  apply 
wiih  their  full  force,  to  the  Canon  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  need  not  be-  repealed.  It  may  not  he 
amiss,  however,  to  hear  from  distingnislied  writers 
of  that  oommunion,  what  their  real  opinion  is,  on 
this  •subject.  Hkuman  asserts,  <' That  the  Sa.  red 
Scriptures,  without  the  authoi'ity  of  the  cluuchj 
have  no  more  authority  than  ^sop's  Fables ;" 
And  Baili.ik,  "  That  he  would  give  no  more  credit 
to  St,  Matthew,  than  to  Livy,  unless  the  church 
obliged  him."  To  the  same  purpose,  speak, 
PiGHius,  EcKius,  Hkllarmixe,  and  many  othei-s 
of  thf'ir  most  distinguished  writers.  By  the  auiho- 
rity  of  the  church,  they  understand  a  power" lodged 
in  the  church  of  Rome,  to  deiermine  what  books 
shrill  be  received  as  the  word  of  God,  than  which 
it  is  scarcely  possible  to  conceive  of  any  thing  more 
absurd. 

In  avoiding  this  extreme,  some  Protestants  have 
verged  towards  the  opposite,  and  have  asserted, 
that  the  only,  or  j)rincipal  evidence  of  the  Canonic 
cal  authority  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  is,  their  in- 
ternal evidence.  Even  some  churches  went  so  far, 
as  to  insert  this  opinion  in  their  public  confess- 
ions.* 

Now  it  ought  not  to  be  doubted,  that  the  inter- 
nal  evidence    of  the    Scriptures,     is   exceedingly 

*  See  the  Confession  of  the  Reformed  Galilean  Cbureh. 
M  2 


134 

strons:  ;  and  that  when  the  mind  of  the  reader  is 
truly  ilkiminated,  it  derives  from  this  source,  the 
most  unwavering  convicti m  of  their  truth  and 
divine  authority  ;  but  that  every  sincere  Christian 
should  be  able,  in  all  cases,  b}-  this  internal  light, 
to  distinguish  between  Canonical  books  and  such 
as  are  not,  is  sur /ly  no  very  safe  or  reasonable  opin- 
ion. Suppose,  that  a  thousand  books  of  various 
kinds,  including  the  Canonical,  were  placed  before 
any  sincere  Christian,  would  he  be  able,  without 
mistake,  to  select  from  this  mass,  the  twenty  seven 
books  of  which  the  New  Testament  is  composed,  if 
he  had  nothing  to  guide  him  but  the  internal  evi. 
dence  ?  Would  every  such  person  be  able,  at  once 
to  determine,  whether  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes,  or 
of  Ecclesiasticus  belonged  to  the  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament,  by  inter  al  evidence  alone?  It  is  cer- 
tain, that  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  neces- 
sary to  produce  a  true  faith  in  the  word  of  God,  but 
to  make  this  the  only  criterion  by  which  to  judge 
of  the  Canonical  authority  of  a  book,  is  certainly 
liable  to  strong  objections.  The  tendency  of  this 
doctrine  is  to  enthusiasm,  and  the  consequence  of 
acting  upon  it,  yvould  be  to  unsettle,  rather  than 
establish  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  ;  for  it  would 
be  stiange,  if  some  peisons,  without  any  other 
guidance  than  their  own  spiritual  taste,  would  not 
pretend  that  other  books  besides  those  long  receiv- 
ed, were  Canonical  ;  or,  would  be  disposed  to  reject 
some  part  of  these.      If  this  evidence  were  as  infal- 


135 

liblc  as  some  would  Imvc  it  to  he,  Oicn  the  auHien- 
ticity  of  every* disputed  text,  as  well  as  the  Cation- 
ical  authority  of  every  book,  mifj;ht  he  asccrt;iincd 
bjv  it:  Hut  we  have  already  seen,  ihai  a  few  eiiii- 
uently  pious  men  doubted  for  a  while,  respecting 
the  Canonical  authority  of  sonic  genuine  books  of 
the  Nevv  Testament. 

And  if  the  internal  evidence  were  the  only  crite- 
rion of  Canonical  autiiority  to  which  we  could  re- 
sort, there  would  remain  no  possibility  of  convinc- 
ing any  person  of  the  inspiration  of  a  book,  unless 
he  could  perceive  in  it  the  internal  evidence  of  a 
divine  origin.  In  many  cases  this  species  of  evi- 
dence can  scarcely  be  said  to  exist,  as  \\  hen  for 
wise  purposes  God  directs  or  inspires  a  prophet  to 
record  genealogical  tables;  or,  even  in  the  narration 
of  common  events,  I  do  not  see  hovv  it  can  be 
determined  from  internal  evidence,  that  the  history 
is  written  by  inspiration  ;  for,  the  only  circum- 
stance in  which  an  inspired  narrative  diObrs  from  a 
faithful  human  history,  is  that  the  one  is  infallible, 
and  the  other  is  not ;  but  the  existence  of  this  infal- 
libility or  the  absence  of  it,  is  not  apparent  from 
reading  the  books.  Both  accounts  may  appear  consis- 
tent, and  it  is  only,  or  chiefly,  by  external  evidence 
that  wc  can  know  that  one  of  them  is  inspired^ 
A\'ho  cuuld  undertiike  to  say,  that  from  inteinal  evi- 
dence alone,  he  could  determine,  ihat  the  book  of 
Kslher,  or  the  Chronicles,  were  written  by  di\  ine 
inspiration  .''    Besides,  some  books  are  obscure  and 


136 

not  easily  understoorl;  now, how  couVl  any  one  dis- 
cern theinternalevidenceof  a  book,  the  meaning  of 
which  he  did  not  yet  understatid  ? 

The  evidence,  arising  frona  a  general  view  of 
the  Scriptures,  collectively,  is  most  convincing,  but 
is  not  so  well  adapted  to  determine,  whether  s^ome 
one  book  considered  separately,  was  certainly  writ- 
ten by  divine  inspiration. 

It  is  necessary,  theiefore,  to  proceed  to  our  des- 
tined point,  in  a  more  circuitoi;s  way.  We  must 
be  at  the  pains  to  examine  into  the  history  of  the 
Canon  ;  and  as  was  before  said,  to  ascertoin  what 
books  were  esteemed  Canonical  by  all  tliose  who 
had  the  best  opportunity  of  judging  of  this  matter  ', 
and  when  the  internal  evidence  is  lound  corroborat- 
ing the  external,  the  two  combined,  rnay  produce 
a  degree  of  conviolion,  which  leaves  no  room  to 
desire  any  stronger  evidence. 

The  question  to  be  decided,  is  a  matter  of  fact. 
It  is  an  inquiry  respecting  the  real  authors  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  :  whether  they  were 
written  by  the  persons  whose  names  they  bear  ; 
or  by  others  under  their  names.  The  inspiration 
of  these  books,  though  closely  allied  to  this  sub- 
ject, is  not  now  the  object  of  inquiry.  The  pro- 
per metliod  of  determining  a  matter  of  fact,  evi- 
dently is,  to  have  recourse  to  those  persons  who 
were  witnesses  of  it,  or  who  received  their  infor- 
mation from  others  who  were  witnesses.  It  is 
only  in  this  way  that  we  know,  that  Homer,  Ho- 


137 

race,  Virgil,  Livy,   and  TuUy,    wrote  the  books, 
which  now  j;o  under  their  names. 

The  early  Christians  pursued  this  method  of  de- 
termining what  books  were  Caiionicul.  They 
searched  into  the  njcons  of  the  chuich,  l)efore 
their  time,  and  from  these  ascertained  what  bonks 
should  be  received,  as  belonging  to  the  Sacred 
Volume.  They  appealed  to  that  certain  and  uni- 
versal tradition,  which  attested  the  genuineness  of 
these  books.  Irenjeus,  Tertullian,  EnsEBixTs, 
Cyril,  and  ArorsTiNE,  have  all  made  use  cf  this 
argument,  in  establishing  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament, 

The  question  is  often  asked,  when  wns  the  Can- 
on of  ilie  JNew  Testament  constituted  ?  and  by 
what  authority  ?  Many  persons  who  write  and 
speak  on  this  subject,  appear  to  entertain  a  wrong 
impression,  in  regard  to  it :  as  if  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  could  not  be  of  authority,  until 
they  were  sanctioned  by  some  Ecclesiastical  Coun- 
cil, or  by  some  publicly  expressed  opinion  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  church  ;  and  as  if  any  ptirtinn  of 
their  authority  depended  on  their  being  collected 
into  one  volume.  But  the  truth  is,  that  every  one 
of  these  books  was  of  authority,  as  far  as  known, 
from  the  moment  of  its  publication  ;  and  its  r'gi;t 
to  a  place  in  the  Canon,  is  not  derived  from  the 
sanction  of  any  church,  or  Council,  but  from  the 
fact,  that  it  was  written  by  inspiration.  And  the 
appeal    to   testimony   is   not   to  prove,    tijat   any 


138 

Council  of  bishops,  or  others,  gave  sanction  to  the 
boL'lc,  but  to  show,  that  it  is  indeed  the  g;pnuirie 
work  of  Matthew,  or  John,  or  P'ter,  or  Paul,  whom 
we  know  1o  have  been  inspired. 

The  books  of  the  New  Testament  were,  tliere- 
fore,  of  full  authority,  before  they  v\  ere  colled ed 
into  one  volume  ;  and  it  would  have  made  no  dif- 
ference, if  they  had  never  been  included  in  one  vol- 
ume, but  had  retained  'haf  separate  f.rm,  in  which 
they  were  first  published.  And  it  is  by  no  means 
certain,  that  these  books  v\ere,  at  a  very  early  pe- 
riod, bound  in  one  volume.  As  far  as  we  have 
any  testimony  on  the  subject,  the  probability  is, 
that  it  was  more  customary  to  include  them  in  two 
volumes  ;  one  of  which  was  called  the  Gof^PEL,  and 
the  other,  the  Apostles.  Some  of  the  oldest  MSS. 
of  the  New  Tesiament  extant,  appear  to  have  been 
p'lt  up  in  this  form;  and  ihe  Fathers  often  refer  to  the 
Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  U!)der  these  two 
titles.  The  qae>tion,  when  was  the  Canon  consti- 
tuted, admits  th  refore,  of  no  other  projier  answer 
than  this,  that  as  soon  as  the  last  book  of  the  New 
Tes; anient  was  written  and  published,  tlie  Canon 
was  completed.  But  if  the  question  i-elates  to  the 
time  when  thi-se  b)oks  were  coHoctec!  tojjeiher, 
and  p  iblished  in  a  single  volume,  or  in  two  vol- 
umes, it  admits  of  no  definite  ansvver  ;  for  those 
churches  whicii  were  situated  nearest  to  the  i-lace, 
where  any  particular  bonks  were  published,  would, 
of  course,  obtain  copies  much  earlier,  than  church- 


139 

es  in  a  remoto  part  of  the  world.  For  a  consider- 
able p.-riod,  tin-  collection  uf  thrsi  books,  in  ctcli 
clr.rch,  nmst  have  bet-n  necc  s  irily  incumplete  ; 
for  il  would  lake  some  time  to  sciul  to  the  church, 
or  people,  with  whom  the  autojj^raphs  were  dep  s- 
ited,  and  to  write  o(T  fair  copies.  This  necessary 
process  will  also  account  for  the  fact,  th.it  soni',  of 
the  smaller  books  were  not  received  by  the  churches 
so  eirly,  nor  so  univers.illy,  as  the  larj^er.  Tiic 
solicitude  of  the  churches  to  possess,  ininiediately, 
the  more  extensive  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
would,  doubtless,  induce  them  to  make  a  ^reat  ex- 
ertion to  acquire  copies;  but  prubably,the  smaller, 
would  not  be  so  much  spoken  of,  nor  would  there 
be  so  strong  a  desire  to  obtain  them  without  delay. 
Considering  how  ditTicult  it  is  now,  with  all  our 
improvements  in  the  typograjjhical  art,  to  multiply 
copies  of  the  Scriptures  with  sullicient  rapidity,  it 
is)  truly  wonderful, how  so  many  churches  as  were 
foundt^d  during  the  first  century,  to  s.iy  nothing  of 
individuals,  could  all  be  supplied  with  copies  of 
the  Nfw  Testament,  when  there  was  no  speedier 
method  of  producing  them,  than  by  writing  every 
letti  r  witii  the  pen  !  Tiie  pen  of  a  ready  wriier 
must  then,  indeed,  have  been  of  immense  v  due. 
Tlie  idea  entertainetl  by  some,  es,jecialiy  by  D.jd- 
wtLL,  thai  .hese  books  lay  f<jr  a  long  lime  h.ck  d 
up  in  the  cotfers  of  tiie  churches  to  which  they  were 
ad'lre-soil,  and  totally  unkiiown  to  the  ii  si  of  the 
world,  IS  ii\  ilaclf  most  improbable  ;   anil  is  repug- 


140 

nant  to  all  the  testimony  which  cxisls  on  the  sub- 
ject. Even  a>  early  as  the  time  when  Peter  wrote 
his  second  Epistle,  the  writings  of  Paul  were  in 
the  hands  of  the  churches,  and  were  classed  with 
the  other  Scriptures.*  And  the  citation  from 
these  books  by  the  earliest  Christian  writers, living 
in  diff  rent  countries,  demonstrates,  that  from  the 
time  of  tlieir  publication,  they  were  souoht  after 
with  avidity,  and  were  widely  dispersed.  How 
intense  the  interest  which  the  fiist  Christians 
felt  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles  can  scarcely  be 
conceived  b)  us,  who  have  been  fjuniiiai-  with 
these  books  from  our  earliest  years.  How  so- 
licitous would  they  be,  for  example,  who  had 
never  seen  Paul,  but  had  heard  of  his  wonderful 
conversion,  and  exlraordiiiary  labours  and  gifts, 
to  read  his  writings?  and  probably  they  who  had 
enjo)  ed  the  high  privilege  of  hearing  this  apostle 
prciicd,  wiiuld  not  be  less  desirous  of  reading  his 
Epistles!  As  we  know,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
as  well  as  from  testimony,  that  many  uncertain  ac- 
counts of  Cia-ist's  discourses  and  nnracles  had  ob- 
tain»;d  ciicuiation,  how  greatly  would  the  primitive 
Christian^  rejoice,  to  obtain  an  authentic  history, 
from  the  pe.i  of  an  apostle,  or  from  one  who  wrote 
precisely  what  was  uict;iteu  by  an  apostle  }  We 
need  no  longer  wonder,  tlierefore,  that  every 
church  should  wish   to  possess  a  collection  of  the 

•  2  Pet.  ill.  14,  15. 


141 


writings  of  the  apostles  ;  and  knowing  them  to  be 
the  productions  of  inspired  men,  they  would  want 
no  furiher  sanction  of  their  authority.  All  that 
was  requisite  was  to  be  certain,  that  the  book  was 
indeed  written  by  the  apostle,  whose  name  it  l)ore. 
And  this  leads  me  to  observe,  that  some  tilings  in 
Paul's  Epistles,  which  seqm  to  common  readers  to 
be  of  no  importance,  were  of  the  utmost  conse- 
quence. Such  as,  /  Terfius  luho  wrote  this 
Epistle  Sf'c.  —  The  salutation  with  mine  own 
hand. — So  I  write  in  every  epistle.  —  Ye  see  how 
large  a  letter  I  have  written  unto  you  with  7nine 
own  hand.  —  The  salutation  by  the  hand  of  me 
Paul.  —  The  salutation  of  Paul  with  mine  own 
handy  which  is  the  token  in  every  Epistle.*  This 
aposile  commonly  employed  an  amanuensis  ;  but 
that  the  churches  to  which  he  wrote,  might  have 
the  assurance  of  the  genuineness  of  his  Epistles, 
from  seeing  his  own  hand  writing,  he  constantly 
wrote  the  Salutation,  himself.  So  much  care 
was  taken  to  have  these  sacred  writings  well  au- 
thenticated, on  their  first  publication.  And  on 
the  same  account  it  was,  that  he  and  the  other 
apostles,  were  so  particular  in  giving  the  names, 
and  the  characters,  of  those  who  were  the  bearers 
of  their  Epistles.  And  it  seems,  that  they  wera 
always  committed  to  the  care  of  men  of  highesti- 

•  Rom.  xvi.  22.     1  Cor.  xvi.  21.     Gal.  vi.  11.     2  Tlies. 
iii.  17. 

N 


142 

Miation  in  the  church ;  and  commonly,  more  than 
one  appears  to  have  been  intrusted  with  this  im- 
portant commission. 

If  it  be  inquired,  what  became  of  the  autographs 
of  these  sacred  books,  and  why  they  were  not 
preserved  ;  since  this  would  have  prevented  all 
uncertainty  respecting  the  true  reading,  and 
would  have  relieved  the  Biblical  critic,  from  a  large 
share  of  labour?  It  is  sufficient  to  answer,  that 
nothing  different  has  occurred,  in  relation  to  these 
autographs,  from  that  which  has  happened  to  all 
other  ancient  writings.  No  man  can  produce  the 
autograph  of  any  book  as  old  as  the  New  Testament, 
unless  it  has  been  preserved  in  some  extraordinary 
way,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Manuscripts  of  Ilercula- 
neum;  neither  could  it  be  supposed, that  in  the  midst 
of  such  vicissitudes,  revolutions,  and  persecutions, 
as  the  Christian  church  endured,  this  object  could 
have  been  secured,  by  any  thing  short  of  a  miracle. 
And  God  knew,  that  by  a  superintending  provi- 
dence over  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  they  could  be 
transmitted  with  sufficient  accuracy,  by  means  of 
apographs,  to  the  most  distant  generations.  In- 
deed, there  is  reason  to  believe,  that  the  Christians 
of  early  times  were  so  absorbed  and  impressed  with 
the  glory  of  the  truths  revealed,  that  they  gave 
themselves  little  concern  about  the  mere  vehicle 
by  vvliich  they  were  communicated.  They  had 
matters  of  such  deep  interest,  and  so  novel,  before 
their  eyes,  that  they  had  neither  time,  nor  incli- 
nation,  for  the  minutiae!  of  criticism.     It  may  be, 


143 

ihcrelbrc,  that  they  did  not  set  so  high  a  value  on 
the  possession  of  the  autograph  of  an  inspired  hook, 
as  we  shouhl,  but  considered  a  copy,  made  with 
scrupulous  fidelity,  as  equally  valuable  with  the 
original.  And  God  may  have  suffered  these  auto- 
graphs of  the  sacred  writings  to  perish,  lest  in  pro- 
cess of  time,  they  should  have  become  idolized, 
like  the  brazen  serpen!  ;  or  lest  men  should  be  led 
superstitiously  to  venerate  the  mere  parchment 
and  ink,  and  form  and  loiters,  employed  by  an 
apostle.  Certainly,  the  history  of  the  church  is 
such,  as  to  render  such  an  idea  far  from  being  im- 
probable. 

But,  although,  little  is  said  about  the  originals  of 
the  apostle's  writings,  we  have  a  testimony  in  Tcr- 
tullian,  that  the  Authentic  Lktters  of  the  apos- 
tles, might  be  seen  by  any  that  would  take  the 
pains  to  go  to  the  churches,  to  which  they  were 
addressed.  Some,  indeed,  think,  that  Tertullian 
does  not  mean  to  refer  to  the  autographs,  but  to 
authentic  copies  ;  but  why  then  send  the  inquirer 
to  the  churches  to  which  the  Epistles  were  ad- 
dressed ?  Mad  not  other  churches,  all  over  the 
world,  authentic  copies  of  these  Epistles  also  ? 
There  seems  to  be  good  reason  therefore,  for  be- 
lieving, that  the  autographs,  or  original  letters  of 
the  A|)Ostles,  were  preserved  by  the  churches  to 
which  they  were  addressed,  in  the  time  of  Ter- 
tullian.'' 

*  Soe  note  B. 


SECTION-     II. 


GATALOGUES  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TES- 
TAAIENI— CANONICAL  BOOKS  ONLY  CUED  AS 
ALIHOKITY  BY  THE  FATHERS,  AND  READ  IN 
THE  CHURCHES  AS  SCRIPTURE. 

Having  declared  our  purpose,  to  place  the  set- 
tling of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  on  the 
fooling  of  authentic  testimony,  we  will  now  pro- 
ceed to  adduce  our  authorities,  and  shall  begin 
with  an  examination  of  the  ancient  cataiogrues  of 
the  New  Testament. 

The  slightest  attention  to  the  works  of  the 
Fathers,  will  convince  any  one,  that  the  writings 
of  the  apostles  were  held,  from  the  beginning, 
in  the  highest  estimation  ;  that  great  pains  were 
taken  to  distinguish  the  genuine  productions  of 
these  inspired  men,  from  all  other  books  ;  that  they 
were  sought  out  with  uncommon  diligence,and  read 
with  profound  attention  and  veneration,  not  onlv  in 
private, but  publicly  in  the  churches  ;  and  that  they 
are  cited  and  referred  to,  universally,  as  decisive 
on  every  point  of  doctrine,  and  as  authoritative 
standards  for  the  regulation  of  faith  and  practice. 

This  being  the  state  of  the  case  when  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  were  communicated  to  the 
churches,    we  are  enabled,    in   regard  to   most  of 


145 

them,  to  produce  testimony  of  the  most  satisfactory 
kind,  that  thoy  were  admilted  into  the  Canon,  and 
received  as  inspired,  by  the  universal  consent  of 
Christians,  in  every  part  of  the  world.  And  as  to 
those  few  books,  concerning  which  some  persons 
entertained  doubts,  it  can  be  shown,  that  as  soon 
as  their  claims  were  fully  and  impartially  investi- 
gated, they  also  were  received  with  universal  con- 
sent. And  that  other  books,  however  excellent 
as  human  compositions,  were  never  put  upon  a 
level  with  the  Canonical  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment; that  spurious  writings,  under  the  names 
of  the  apostles,  were  promptly  and  decisively  re- 
jected, and  that  the  churches  were  rept?aledly 
warned  against  such  Apocryphal  books. 

To  do  justice  to  this  subject,  will  require  some 
detail  which  may  appear  dry  to  the  reader, 
but  should  be  interesting  to  every  person  who 
wishes  to  know  assuredly,  that  what  he  receives 
as  Sacrefl  Scripture,  is  no  imposture,  but  the  genu- 
ine, authentic  productions  of  those  inspired  men, 
whom  Christ  appointed  to  be  his  witnesses  to  the 
world,  and  to  whom  was  comni  tted  the  sacred 
deposit  of  divine  truth,  intended  for  the  instrtiction 
and  government  of  the  church  in  all  future  ages. 

In  exhibiting  the  evidence  of  the  Canonical  au- 
thority of  these  books,  we  shnll  first  attend  to  some 
general  considerations,  which  relate  to  the  whole 
volume,  and  thon  adduce  te^timony  in  favour  of 
each  book,  now  included  in  the  Canon. 
N  2 


146 

And  here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Old  Testan^ent, 
we  find,  that  at  a  very  early  period,  catalogu'.s  of 
these  books  were  published,  by  most  of  ihe  distin- 
guished Fathers  whose  writings  hive  come  down 
to  us  :  the  same  has  been  done  also,  by  several 
Councils,  whose  decrees  are  still  extant. 

These  catalogues,  are,  for  the  most  part,  perfect- 
ly harmonious.  In  a  few  of  them,  some  books 
now  in  the  Canon,  are  omitted,  for  which  omission 
a  satisfactory  reason  can  commonly  be  assigned. 
In  the  first  circulation  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
there  was  great  need  of  such  lists  ;  as  the  distant 
churches  and  common  Christians,  were  liable  to 
be  imposed  on  by  spurious  writings,  which  seem 
to  have  abounded  in  those  times.  It  was,  there- 
fore, a  most  important  part  of  the  instruction  given 
to  Christians,  by  their  spiritual  guides,  to  inform 
them  accurately,  what  books  belonged  to  the  Can- 
on. Great  pains  were  taken,  also,  to  know  the 
truth  on  this  subject.  Pious  bishops,  for  this  sin- 
gle purpose,  travelled  into  Judea,  and  remained 
there  for  some  time,  that  they  might  learn  accurate- 
ly, every  circumstance,  relative  to  the  authenticity 
of  these  writings. 

The  first  regular  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  which  we  find  on  record,  is  by 
Origen,  whose  extensive  Biblical  knowledge  high- 
ly qualified  him  to  judge  correctly  in  this  case. 
He  had  not  only  read  much,  but  travelled  exten- 
sively, and  resided  a  great  part  of  his   life  on  the 


147 

confines  of  .Tiulea,  in  a  situalion  favonrablc  fo  accu- 
rate information,  from  every  part  of  the  church, 
where  any  of  these  books  were  originally  pubhshcd. 
Origen  lived,  and  nourished,  ahont  one  hundred 
years  after  the  de  ith  of  tiie  Apostle  John.  He 
was,  therefore,  near  enoug;h  to  the  time  of  ti)e  pub- 
lication of  tliese  books,  to  obtain  the  most  certain 
information  of  their  authors.  Most  of  the  orijjinal 
writings  of  this  great  and  learned  man  have  per. 
islied,  but  his  catidogue  of  the  books  of  ihe  New 
Testament  has  been  preserved  bv  Eusebius,  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  History.*  It  was  contained  in 
Origen's  Homilies  on  the  gospel  of  Matthtu  ;  and 
was  repeated  in  his  Homilies  on  the  gospel  of  John. 
In  this  catalogue,  he  mentions.  The  fopr  gos* 
PELS,  THE  Acts  op  the  Apostles,  Foukteen 
Epistles  of  Paul,  Two  op  Peter,  Three  op 
John,  and  The  book  op  Revelation  This 
enumeration  includes  all  the  present  Canon,  except 
the  Epistles  of  James,  and  Judf,  but  these  were 
omi  ted  by  accident,  not  design  ;  for  in  other  parts 
of  his  writings,  he  acknowledges  these  Epistles  as 
a  part  of  the  Canon.  And  while  Origen  furnishes 
us  with  so  full  a  catalogue  of  the  books  now  in  the 
Canon,  he  inserts  no  others,  which  proves,  thnt  in 
his  time,  the  Canon  was  well  settled  aniong  the 
learned  ;  and  that  the  distinction  between  inspired 
writings  and  human  compositions,  was  as  clearly 
marked,  as  at  any  subsciquent  period. 

*  Lib.  vi.  c.  25. 


148 

In  the  work  entitled,  Apostolical  Consti- 
TUTIO'S,  ascribed  to  Clemewt  of  Rome,  there  is  a 
catalogue  of  tl^e  books  of  the  Nev\  Testfiment; 
but  as  this  work  is  not  8;enuine,  and  of  an  uncertain 
author  and  age,  I  vvill  not  make  use  of  it. 

So  also,  the  catalogue  ascrib'id  to  tl)e  Council 
OF  Nice,  is  not  genuine,  and  is  coijnect  d  with  a 
story,  which  bears  every  nark  of  superstitious 
crcduliiy*  This  ihrrefore.  shall  be  likewise  omit- 
ted. We  stand  in  no  need  of  suspicious  testimony, 
on  this  subject.  Witnesses  of  the  most  undoubted 
ve.'iicity,  and  distinguiahed  intelligence,  can  be 
found  in  every  succes^^ive  age. 

2.  The  next  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  to  which  I  will  refer,  is  that  of  EusE- 
Bius,  the  learned  Hist<  ri.jn  of  the  church;  to  whose 
diligence  and  fidelity,  in  collecting  Ecclesiastical 
fact-,  we  are  more  indebted,  than  to  the  labouis  of 
all  «.ther  men,  for  that  period  which  intervened  be- 
tween the  days  of  the  Apostles  and  his  own  times. 

*  The  story  is  briefly  this.  The  Fathers  of  the  Council 
of  Nice  pn^  all  the  books  which  claimed  a  place  in  the 
Sacred  Cannon  under  the  comn)union  table  of  the  church, 
and  tiien  prayed  that  such  of  them  as  were  inspired  might 
be  found  upperniobt.  and  the  Apocryphal  below;  where- 
upon the  event  occurred  agreeably  to  their  wishes  ;  and 
thus  a  clear  line  of  distinction  was  made  between  Canonical 
books  and  such  as  were  not  Canonii-al.  7'his  story  is  rela- 
ted in  the  Synodicon  of  Popus,  an  obscure  writer,  and  is  un- 
deserving of  the  smallest  credit. 


149 

KtJSEBius  may  be  considered  as  giving  his  tes- 
timony about  one  hundred  years  after  Ori«en'. 
His  catalogue  may  be  seen  in  his  Ecclesiastical 
History.*  In  it,  he  enumerates  every  book  which 
we  now  have  in  the  Canon,  and  no  others  ;  but  he 
mentions  that  the  Epistle  of  James,  The  second  of 
Peter,  and  second  and  tliird  of  John,  were  (Joubt- 
ed  of  by  some  ;  and  that  Revelation  was  rejected 
by  some, and  receivetl  by  others  ;  but  Eusebius  him- 
self declares  it  to  be  his  opinion,  that  it  should  be 
received  without  d  lubt. 

There  is  no  single  witness  among  the  whole 
number  of  Ecclesiastical  writer--,  who  was  more 
competent  to  give  accurate  information  on  this  sub- 
ject, than  Eusebius.  He  had  spent  a  great  part  of 
his  life  in  searching  i:ito  the  antiquities  of  the 
Christiai.  church  ;  and  he  had  an  intimate  acquaint- 
ance with  all  the  records  relating  to  Ecclesiastical 
affairs,  many  of  which  are  now  lost  ;  and  almost 
the  only  information  which  we  have  of  them  has 
been  transmitted  to  us,  by  this  diligent  compiler. 

3.  Athanasius,  so  well  known  for  his  writings 
and  his  sufferings  in  defence  of  the  divinity  of  our 
Saviour,  in  his  Festal  Epistle,  and  in  his  Synopsis 
of  Scripture,  has  left  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  which  perfectly  agrees  with 
the  Canon  now  in  use. 

*  Enseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  L.  iii.  c.  25.  comp.  with  c  8. 


150 

4.  Cyril,  in  his  Catechetical  work,  has  also 
givefl  us  a  catalogue,  perfectly  agreeing  with  ours, 
except  that  he  omits  the  book  of  Revelation.  Why 
that  book  was  so  often  left  out  of  the  ancient  cata- 
logues and  collections  of  the  Scriptures,  shall  be 
mentioned  hereafter.  Athanasius  and  Cyril  were 
contemporary  with  Eusebius  ;  the  latter,  however, 
may  more  properly  be  considered,  as  twenty  or 
thirty  years  later. 

5.  Then,  a  little  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  we  have  the  testimony  of  all  the  bishops 
assembled  in  the  Council  or  Laodicea.  The  ca- 
talogue of  this  council  is  contained  in  their  sixtieth 
Canon,  and  is  exactly  the  same  as  ours,  except  that 
the  book  of  Revelation  is  omitted.  The  decrees 
of  this  council,  were,  in  a  short  time,  received  into 
the  Canons  of  the  universal  church  ;  and  among 
the  rest,  this  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  Thus,  we  find,  that  as  early  as  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century,  there  was  a  universal 
consent,  in  all  parts  of  the  world  to  which  the 
Christian  church  extended,  as  to  the  books  which 
constituted  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  vvith 
the  single  exception  of  the  book  of  Revelation  ; 
and  that  this  book  was  also  generally  a-  mitted  to 
be  canonical,  we  shall  take  the  opportunity  of 
proving,  in  the  sequel  of  this  work. 

6.  But  a  lew  years  elnpsed  from  the  meeting  of 
this  council,  before  Epiphanius,    bishop  of  Sala- 


151 

mis,  in  the  Island  of  Cyprus,  published  his  work 
ON  Heuksif.s.  in  whicli  he  gives  a  catalogue  of  the 
Canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  which,  in 
every  respect,  is  the  same,  as  the  Canon  now  re- 
ceived. 

7.  About  the  same  time,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
bishop  of  Conslantinojjle,  in  a  Poem,  on  the  riirjE 
AND  Genuine  Scriptures,  mentions  distinctly, 
all  the  books  now  received,  except  Revelation. 

8.  A  few  years  later,  we  have  a  list  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  in  a  work  of  Philastrius, 
bishop  of  Brixia,  in  Italy,  which  corresponds,  in 
all  respects,  with  those  now  received  ;  except  tliat 
he  mentions  no  more  than  thirteen  of  Paul's  Epis- 
tles. If  the  omission  was  designed,  it  probably  re- 
lates to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

9.  At  the  same  time,  lived  Jeho.aie,  who  trans- 
lated the  whole  Bible  into  Latin.  He  furnrshcs 
us  with  a  catalogue  answering  to  our  present  Can- 
on, in  all  respects.  He  does,  however,  speak 
doubtfully  about  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  on 
account  of  the  uncertainty  of  its  author.  But,  in 
other  parts  of  his  writings,  he  shows,  that  he  re- 
ceived this  book  as  Canonical,  as  well  sjs  the  rest.  * 

10.  The  catalogue  of  Rufin  varies  in  nothing 
from  the  Canon  now  received .t 

11.  Augustine,    in   his    work  on  Christian 

•  Epist.  ad  Paulinum. 

t  Expos,  in   Symbol.  Apost. 


152  • 

Doctrine,  has  inserted  the  names  of  the  books  of 
the  JNew  Testament,  which,  in  all  respects,  are  the 
same  as  ours. 

12.  The  council  of  Carthage,  at  which  Au- 
gustine was  present,  have  furnished  a  catalogue, 
which  perfectly  agrees  with  ours.  At  this  coun- 
cil, forty  four  bishops  attended.  The  list  referred 
to,  is  found,  in  their  forty  eighth  canon. 

13.  The  unknown  author,  who  goes  under  the 
name  of  Dyomsius  the  Areopagite,  so  describes 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  as  to  show,  that  he 
received  the  very  same,  as  are  now  in  the  Canon. 

Another  satisfactory  source  of  evidence,  in  fa- 
vour of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  as  now 
received,  is  the  fact,  that  these  books  were  quoted 
as  Sacred  Scripture,  by  all  the  Fathers,  living  in 
parts  of  the  world  the  most  remote  from  each  other. 
The  truth  of  this  assertion  will  fully  appear,  when 
we  come  to  speak,  particularly,  of  the  books  which 
compose  the  Canon.  Now,  how  can  it  be  account- 
ed for,  that  these  books,  and  these  alone,  should 
be  cited  as  authority,  in  Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe  ? 
No  other  reason  can  be  assigned,  than  one  of  these 
two  ;  either,  they  knew  no  other  books  which 
claimed  to  be  Canonical  ;  or,  if  they  did,  they  did 
not  esteem  them  of  equal  authority,  with  those 
which  they  cited.  On  either  of  these  grounds  the 
conclusion  is  the  same,  that  the  books  quoted 
AS  Scripture  are  alone  the  Canonical  books. 
To  apply  this  rule  to  a  particular  case;  The  first 


153 

Epistle  op  Peter  is  Canonical,  becaus'^  it  is  cob* 
tinually  cited  by  the  most  ancient  Christian  writers, 
in  every  part  of  the  vvorlci  ;  but  the  book  called, 
Thk  Revelation  of  Peter,  is  Apocr  phal,  be- 
cause none  of  the  early  Fathers  have  takm  any  tes- 
timonies from  it.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Acts 
OF  Peter,  and  The  Gospel  of  Peter.  These 
writings  were  totally  unknown  to  the  primitive 
church,  and  are  therefore  spurious.  This  argu- 
ment is  perfectly  conclusive,  and  its  foice  was  per- 
ceived by  the  ancient  defenders  of  the  Canon  of 
the  New  Testament.  Eusebius,  repeatedly  has 
recourse  to  it  :  And,  therefore,  those  persons  who 
have  aimed  to  unsettle  our  present  Canon,  as  Po- 
land and  Dodwell,  have  attempted  to  prove  that 
the  early  Christian  writers  were  in  the  habit  of 
quoting  indifferently,  and  promiscuously,  the  books 
which  we  now  receive,  and  others  which  are  now 
rejected,  as  Apocryphal.  But  this  is  not  correct, as 
has  been  shown,  by  Nye,  Richardson,  and  others. 
The  true  method  of  determining  this  matter,  is  by 
a  careful  examination  of  all  the  passages  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers,  where  other  books  besides 
those  now  in  the  Canon  have  been  quoted.  Some 
progress  was  made  in  collecting  the  passages  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers,  in  which  any  reference  is 
made  to  the  Apocryphal  books,  by  the  learned  Je- 
remiah Jon*  s,  in  his  New  Method  of  skttlino 
THE  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  but  the 
work  was  left  incomplete.  This  author,  however, 
o 


154i 

positively  denies,  that  it  is  common  for  the  Fathers 
to  cite  these  books  as  Scripture,  and  asserts,  that 
there  are  only  a  very  few  instances,  in  which  any 
of  them  seem  to  have  fallen  into  this  mistake. 

A  third  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Ca- 
non of  the  New  Testament,  may  be  derived  from 
the  fact,  that  these  books  were  publicly  read  as 
Scripture,  in  all  the  christian  churches. 

As  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  read  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  their  Syna- 
gogues, so  the  early  Christians  transferred  the 
same  practice  to  the  church  ;  and  it  seems  to  have 
been  in  use  even  in  the  apostle's  days,  as  appears 
by  Col.  iv.  16',  where  Paul  speaks,  of  readmg  the 
Epistles,  addressed  to  the  churches,  as  a  thing  of 
course,  Jind  ivhen  this  Epistle  is  read  among 
you,  cause  that  it  be  read  also  in  the  church  of 
the  Laodiceans,  and  that  ye  likewise,  read  the 
Mpistlefrom  Laodicea. 

Justin  Martyr  explicitly  testifies,  that  this 
was  the  custom  in  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century.  "On.  the  day,"  says,  he  "which  is 
called  Sunday,  there  is  a  meeting  of  all  (Christ- 
ians) who  live  either  in  cities,  or  country  places, 
and  THE  MEMOIRS  OP  THE  AposTLEs,  and  wri- 
tings of  the  prophets,  are  read."* 

Tertullian  is  equally  explicit ;  for,  in  giv- 
ing an  account  oi  the  meetings  of  christians  for 
worship,   he  says,    "They   assemble  to  read  the 

*  Apol.  ii.  p.  93. 


155 

Scriptures,  and  offer  up  prayers."  andin  another 
place,  among;  the  solemn  exercises  of  the  Lord  3 
Day,  he  reckons,  **  Reading  the  Scriptures,  sin^- 
int;  Psalms.  &c."* 

The  same  account  is  given  by  Cyprian, t  and  by 
the  ancient  author  under  the  name  of   Dyonisius 
THE   Areopagitk  \X  ^^'^  ^Y  Several  other  ancient 
authors.     Now  this  practice  of  reading  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  in  the  christian  churches,  began  so  ear- 
ly, that  it  is  scarcely  possible,  that  they  could  have 
been   imposed   on    by  supposititous   writings.      A 
more   effectual   method  of  guarding  against    Apoc- 
ryphal   writings   obtaining   a  place   in   the  Canon, 
could  not  have  been   devised.      It  afforded    all  the 
members  of  the  church  an  opportunity  of  knowing 
what  books  were  acknowledged  as  Canonical,  and 
precluded    all   oppoitunity    of  foisting  in   spurious 
works  ;  since,  if  this  had  be  mi  done  in  some  one 
churoh,  the   practice   of  all  otlier  churches  would 
qtiickly  have  exposed  the  imposture.     According- 
ly, the  Fathers  often  referred  to  this  custom,  as  the 
guide  to  the  people,    respecting  the  books   which 
they  should   read  ;   "  Avoid    Apocryphal   books," 
says  CvRiLto  his  catechumen,  *'  And  study  careful- 
ly those    Scriptures  only,    which    are    publicly 
READ  IN  THE  CHCiicH."  Again, having  given  a  cata- 
logue  of  the  books  of  Scripture,    he  adds,    *' Let 
others  be    rejected,    and   such    as  are  not    read 

•  Tortull.  DeAnima.  f  Cyp.  EpisU  36,  39. 

t  Hiorarch.  Eco.  c.  3. 


156 

IN    THE  Churches,  neither    do  you  read  in  prr- 
Tate." 

It  was  decreed  in  the  Cofncil  of  Laodicea, 
"That  no  private  Psalms  should  be  read  in  the 
churches,  nor  any  books  without  the  Canon  ;  but 
only  the  Canonical  writings  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament."  The  same  thing  was  determined  in 
THE  Council  of  Carthage.  But  notwithstand- 
ing these  decrees,  and  the  opinions  of  learned  Fa- 
thers, there  were  some  pieces  read  in  some  of  the 
churches,  which  were  not  Canonical.  Thus,  Dy- 
ONisius  bishop  of  Corinth,  in  the  second  century, 
in  a  letter  to  the  church  of  Rome,  tells  them, 
"That  they  read  in  their  assemblies,  on  the  Lord's 
day,  Clement's  Epistle  :"  And  Eusebius  declares, 
*'That  in  his,  and  the  preceding  times,  it  was  al- 
most universally  received,  and  read  inmost  church- 
es." He  says  also,  "  That  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas,  was  read  in  many  churches,"  which  is 
confirmed  by  Athaiiasius  and  Rufin.  Whilst  these 
books  which  are  not  now  in  the  Canon,  were  pub- 
licly read  in  many  churches,  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion was  not,aecording  to  Cyril,read  in  the  church- 
es ;  nor  commanded  to  be  read,  by  the  Council  of 
Laodicea.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  at  first  view, 
that  the  application  of  this  rule  would  exclude  the 
book  of  Revelation  from  the  Canon,  and  take  in 
the  Epistle  or  Clement,  and  the  Shepherd 
OF  Hermas.  But  the  rule  does  not  apply  to  every 
thing  which  was  read  in  the  churches,  but  to  such 


157 

books  as  were  read  as  Sacred  Scripture.  It  has 
fippeared  in  a  former  part  of  tliis  work,  that  several 
hooks,  not  in  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
were  nevertheless  read  in  tiie  churches  ;  but  the 
Fathers  carefully  distinguished  between  these,  and 
the  Canonical  books.  They  were  read  for  instruc- 
tion and  for  the  improvement  of  manners,  but  not 
as  authority  in  matters  of  faith.  They  distins^uish- 
ed  the  books  read  in  the  churches,  into  Canoni- 
cal and  Ecclesiastical ;  of  the  latter  kind,  were 
the  books  mentioned  above,  and  some  others. 
The  reason  why  the  book  of  Revelation  was  not 
directed  to  be  read  publicly,  shall  be  assigned, 
when  we  come  to  treat  particularly  of  the  Canoni- 
cal authority  of  that  book. 

A  fourth  argument  to  prove,  that  our  Canon  of 
the  New  Testament  is  substantially  correct,  may 
be  derived  from  the  early  versions  of  this  sacred 
book,  into  other  languages. 

Although  the  Greek  language  was  extensively 
known  through  the  Roman  empire,  when  the  apos- 
tles wrote  ;  yet  the  Christian  church  was  in  a  short 
time  extended  inio  regions,  where  the  common 
people,' at  least,  were  not  acquainted  with  it;  nor 
with  any  language,  except  their  own  vernacular 
tongue.  While  the  gift  of  tongues  continued,  the 
difficulty  of  making  known  the  Gospel  to  such 
people,  would,  in  some  measure,  be  obviated,  but 
when  these  miraculous  powers  ceased,  the  necess- 
ity of  a  version  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  into 
o  2 


158 

the  language  of  the  people,  Avould  become  mani- 
fest. As  far,  therefore,  as  we  may  be  permitted  to 
reason  from  the  nature  or  the  case,  and  the  neces- 
sities of  the  churches,  ilis  exceedingly  probable, 
that  versions  of  the  New  Testament  were  made 
shortly  after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  if  they  were 
not  begun  before.  Can  we  suppose  that  the  num- 
erous Christians  in  Syria,  Mesopotamia,  and  the 
various  parts  of  Italy,  would  be  long  left,  without 
having  these  precious  books  translated  into  a  lan- 
guage which  all  the  people  could  understand  ?  But 
we  are  not  left  to  our  own  reasonings  on  this  sub- 
ject. We  know,  that  at  a  very  early  period,  there 
existed  Latin  versions  of  the  New  Testament,which 
had  been  so  long  in  use  before  the  time  of  Jerome, 
as  to  have  become  considerably  corrupt,  on  which 
account,  he  undertook  a  New  Version,  which  soon 
superseded  those  that  were  more  ancient.  Now, 
although,  nothing  remims  of  these  ancient  Latin 
Versions,  but  uncertain  fragments,  yet  we  have 
good  evidence.that  they  contained  the  same  books, 
as  were  inserted  in  Jerome's  Version,  now  deno- 
minated, the  Vulgate. 

But,  perhaps  the  Old  Syriac  Version  of  the  New 
Testament,  called  Pkshito,  fiirnisiies  the  strong- 
est proof  of  the  Caaouical  authority,  of  all  the 
books  which  are  conained  in  it.  ,  This  excellent 
version  has  a  very  high  claim  to  antiquity  ;  and  in 
the  opinion  ofsomeof  the  bestSyriuc  scholars, who 
have  prufoanily  examined  this  subject,  .was  made 
before  the  close  of  tne  fiist  century. 


159 

The  arguments  for  so  earl}'  an  orio;in,are  not,  in- 
deed, conclusive,  but  they  possess  mucii  probabi' 
lity,  whether  we  consider  the  external,  or  internal 
evidence.  The  Syrian  Cliristians  have  always  in- 
sisted that  this  version  was  made  by  the  apostle 
Thaddeus;  but  without  admitting;  this  claim, which 
would  put  it  on  a  level  with  the  Greek  original, 
we  may  believe,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  brought 
down  lower  than  the  second  century.  It  is  uni- 
versally received  by  all  the  numerous  sects  of  Sy- 
rian Christians,  and  must  be  anterior  to  the  exist- 
ence of  the  'ddest  of  tliem.  Manes,  who  lived  in  the 
second  century,  probably  had  read  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  the  Syriac,  which  was  his  native  tongue; 
and  JustinMartfr,  when  he  testifies  that  the 
Scriptures  of  tlie  New  Testament,  vvere  read  in  the 
Assemblies  of  Christians,  on  every  Sunday,  proba- 
bly refers  to  Syrian  Chrislians,  as  Syria  was  his 
native  place;  where  aiso  he  had  his  usual  residence. 
And,  JVIiCHAELlsis  of  opinion,  that  Mkhto,  who 
vvtote  about  A.  D  170,  has  expressly  declare!, 
that  a  Svrian  Version  of  the  Bible  existed  in  his 
time.  Jerome  alsotestifi>  s,  explicitly,  that  when 
h*^  wrote,  the  Syriac  Bihle  was  publicly  rea  I  in 
the  churches  ;  fir,  says  he,  ''  Ephr.'m  th  'Syrian  is 
held  in  such  veneration,  that  his  writitigs  are  read 
in  several  churches,  iminediately  after  'i  he  Les- 
sons FROM  THE  Bible.  It  is  also  well  known, 
that  the  Armenian  Version,  which  itself  is  ancient, 
was  made  from  the  Syriac. 


Now,  this  ancient  Version  contains  the  Four 
Gospels,  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  The  Epistles 
of  Paul  including  that  to  the  Hebrews,  The  First 
Epistle  of  John,  The  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  and 
the  Epistle  of  James.  Thus  far  then,  the  evidence 
of  the  present  Canon  is  complete  ;  and  as  to  those 
books  omitted  in  this  Version  except  Revelation, 
they  are  few,and  small,  and  probably  were  unknown 
to  the  translator;  or,  the  evidence  of  their  geunine- 
ness  was  not  ascertained  by  him.  And  as  it  re- 
lates to  Revelation,  the  same  reasons  which  ex- 
cluded it  from  so  many  ancient  catalogues,  proba- 
bly operated  here.  It  was  judged  to  be  too  mys- 
terious to  be  read  in  the  churches,  and  by  common 
Christians,  and  therefore  was  not  put  into  the  Vol- 
ume  which  was  read   publicly   in    the    churches. 

The  arguments  for  a  Latin  origin  of  this  Version, 
possess,  in  my  judgment,  very  little  force.* 

On  the  general  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of 
our  Canon,  I  would  subjoin  the  following  remarks. 

1.  The  agreement  among  those  who  have  given 
catalogues  of  the  bo  ks  of  the  New  Testament, 
from  the  earliest  times,  is  almost  complete.  Of 
thirteen  catalogues  to  which  we  have  referred, 
seven  contain  exactly  the  same  books,  as  are  now 
in  the  Canon  Three  of  the  others  differ  in  nothing, 
but  the  omission  of  the.  hook  of  Revelation,  for 
which  they  had  a  particular  reason,  consistent  with 

*  On  this  whole  suhjpct,  consult  Jones  on  the  Canon, 
Michaelis's  Introductioii,  MiU'e  I'roJegomena. 


161 

their  belief  of  its  Canonical  authority  ;  and  in  tw« 
of  the  remaining;  catalogues,  it  can  be  proveil,  that 
the  books  omitted,  or  represented  as  doubtful, 
were  received  as  authentic,  by  the  perwjns  who 
have  given  the  catalogues.  It  may  be  asserted* 
therefore,  that  the  consent  of  the  ancient  church, 
as  to  what  books  belonged  to  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament,  was  complete.  The  Sacred  Volume 
was  as  accurately  formed,  and  as  rle.irly  distin- 
guished from  other  books,  in  the  third,  fourth,  and 
fifth  centuries,  as  it  has  ever  been  since. 

2.  Let  it  be  considered,  moreover,  that  the  ear- 
liest of  these  catalogues  was  given  by  Okigen,  who 
lived  within  a  hundred  years  of  the  death  of  the 
Apostle  John,  and  who  by  hi.s  reading,  travels, 
and  long  residence  in  Palestine,  had  a  full  know- 
ledge of  all  the  transactions  and  writings  of  the 
church,  until  his  own  time.  In  connexion  with 
this,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  these  catalogues 
were  drawn  up  by  the  most  learned,  pious,  and 
distinguished  men  in  the  church  ;  or  by  councils  ; 
and  that  the  persons  furnishing  them,  re>ided  in 
different  and  remote  parts  of  the  world  ;  as  for  ex- 
ample, in  Jerusalem,  Cesaraea,  Carthage  and  Hippo 
in  Africa,  Constantinople,  Cyprus,  Alexandria  in 
Egypt,  Italy,  and  Asia  Minor.  Thus,  it  appears, 
that  the  Canon  was  early  agreed  upon,  and  that  it 
was  every  where  the  same  ;  therefore,  we  fuul  the 
Fathers,  in  all  their  writings,  appealing  to  the  same 
Scriptures  ;  and  none  are  charged  witli  rejecting 
any  Canonical  book,  except    herelios. 


S,  It  appears  from  the  testimony  adduced,  that 
it  was  never  considered  necessary,  that  anj'  Coun- 
cil or  bishop,  should  give  s;inction  to  these  books, 
in  any  other  way,  than  as  witnesses,  testifying 
to  the  churches,  that  these  were  indeed  the  genu- 
ine writings  of  the  apostles.  These  books,  there- 
fore, were  never  considered  as  deriving  their  au- 
thority from  tl  e  Church,  or  from  Councils,  hat 
were  of  complete  authority  as  soon  as  published  : 
and  were  delivered  to  the  churches  to  be  a  guide 
and  standard,  in  all  things  relating  to  faith  and 
practice.  The  Fathers  would  have  considered  it  im- 
pious, for  any  bishop,  or  Council,  to  pretend  to  add 
any  thing  to  the  authority  of  inspired  books  ;  or  to 
claim  the  right  to  add  other  books  to  those  banded 
down  from  the  Apostles.  The  church  is  founded 
on  THK  Apostles  and  prophets,  Jes'  s  Christ 
BEING  THE  CHIEF  CORNER  STONE  ;  but  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  are  no  how  dependent  for  their  author- 
ity, on  any  set  of  men,  who  lived  since  they  were 
written. 

4  We  may  remark,  in  the  last  place,  tlie  be- 
nignant providence  of  God  towards  his  church, 
in  causing  these  pn  cious  books  to  be  written,  and 
in  watching  over  their  preservation,  in  tlie  midst  of 
dangers  and  persecutions  ;  so,  that  notwithstanding 
the  malignant  designs  of  the  enemies  of  the  church, 
they  have  all  come  down  to  us  unmutilated,  in  the 
original  tongue,  in  which  they  were  penned  by 
the  Aposilet*. 


163 

Our  liveliest  p;ratilude  is  due  to  the  great  Head 
of  the  cliuich  fortius  divine  treasure,  from  which 
we  are  ptrmilted  freely  to  draw,  whmtever  is  need- 
ful lor  our  instruction  and  consolation.  And  it  is 
our  duty  to  prize  this  precious  gift  of  divine  reve- 
lation, above  all  price.  On  the  Law  of  the  Lord, 
we  siiould  meditate  day  and  night.  It  is  a  perfect 
rule  ;  it  shines  with  a  clear  light ;  it  exercises  a 
salutary  influence  on  the  heait  ;  it  warns  us  when 
we  are  in  danger  ;  reclaims  us  when  we  go  astray; 
and  comforts  us  when  in  affliction.  The  word  of 
the  Lord  is  ninre  to  be  desired  than  gold,  yea^ 
than  7nuch  fine  gold ,  sweeter  also  than  hotiey, 
and  the  honey  comb.  They  who  are  destitute  of 
this  inestimable  volume  call  for  our  tenderest  com- 
passion, and  our  exertions  in  circulating  tlie  Biljle 
should  never  be  remitted,  until  all  are  supplied 
with  this  divine  treasure  ;  but  they  who  possess  this 
Saered  Volume,  and  yel  neglect  to  study  it  are  still 
more  to  be  pitied,  for  they  are  perishing  in  the 
midst  of  plenty.  In  the  midst  of  light,  they  walk 
in  darkness.  God  has  sent  to  them  the  word  of 
LIFE,  but  they  have  lightly  esteemed  the  rich  gift 
of  his  love.  0  that  their  eyes  were  opened,  that 
they  might  behold  wondrous  things  in  the  Law  of 
the  Lord! 

Ps.  xix.  10. 


SEOTIOir   III. 

ORDER  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT- 
TIME  OF  THE  GOSPELS  BEING  WRITTEN— NOTICE 
OF  THE  EVANGELISTS. 

The  order  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
is  not  uniform,  in  the  Manuscripts,  now  extant ; 
nor,  as  they  are  mentioned  by  the  Fathers.  Eu- 
SEBius  arranges  them  thus  ;  The  Four  Gospels? 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  The  Epistles  of  Paul, 
The  First  Epistle  of  John,  and  The  Revelation  of 
John.  *' These,"  says  he,  "  were  received  (except 
the  last  mentioned)  by  all  christians."  Then,  he 
mentions  those  which  were  not  unanimously  re- 
ceived; as,  The  Epistle  of  James,  The  Epistle  of 
Jude,  The  Second  of  Peter,  and  the  Second  and 
Third  of  John. 

Iren^us,  who  lived  long  before  Eusebius,  has 
not  given  a  regular  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament, but  he  seems  to  have  followed  the 
same  order. 

But  Athanasius,  in  his  Festal  Epistle,  has 
given  the  following  order  ;  The  Four  Gospels, 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  The  Seven  Catholic 
Epistles,  The  Fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  The 
Revelation.  The  ancient,  and  celebrated  Alexan- 
drian Manuscript  follows  the  same  order ;  as  also 


165 

does  Cyrtl  of  Jerusalem,   but  he  does  not  mentioa 
Revelation. 

The  arranajement  in  the  cat;i]ogne  of  the  Coun- 
cil OF  Laodicea,   is   exactly  the  same  as   that  of 
Cyril;  the  book  of  Revelation  bei,io;  lelt  out. 
John  Damascene,  and  Leontifs, follow  thesame 
order 

The  order  of  the  Syrian  cataloo^nes  as  sjiven  b}' 
Ebedjesit,  is  ;  The  Four  Gospels.  The  Arts  of  the 
Apostles,  The  Three  Catholic  Epistles,  (their  Can- 
on at  first  contained  no  more)  and  The  Fourteen 
Epistles  of  Paul. 

Rufin's  order,  is ;  The  Gospels,  The  Acts, 
Paul's  Epistles,  The  Catholic  Epistles,  and  The 
Revelation. 

The  Council  op  Carthage,  has  the  same. 

Gregoky  Nazianzen  the  same  ;  only,  Revela- 
tion is  omitted. 

Amphilochius  thesame,  and  the  book  of  Reve- 
lation, mentioned  as  doubtful. 

NicEPHORus  of  Constantinople,the  same,  and  Re- 
velation  omitted. 

This,  therefore,  appears  to  have  been  the  order, 
in  which  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  succeed- 
ed each  other  in  most  ancient  copies;  and  is  the 
one  now  in  general  use. 

But   EpipiiAxius    has   an   order    different  from 
any  of  these,  as  follows  ;    The  Four  Gospels.  Paul's 
Epistles,   The  Acts  of  the   Apostles,   The    Seven 
Catholic  Epistles,  and  the  Revelation, 
p 


166 
Jekome  follows  the  same  order ;    and  also  Eu- 

THALIUS. 

Augustine  varies,  in  his  arrangement  of  the 
Sacred  books.  In  one  place,  he  puts  the  Acts 
last,  except  Revelation  ;  and  in  another,  he  places 
it  iifter  Revelation.  He  also  varies  in  his  arraiig;e- 
ment  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  of  the  Catholic 
Epistles. 

The  order  of  Innocent  the  First,  bishop  of 
Rome,  is  ;  The  Four  Gospels,  Paul's  Epistles,  The 
Catholic  Epistles,  The  Acts,  and  Revelation. 

Isidore  of  Seville,  has,  in  his  writings,  given 
several  catalogues,  in  all  of  which,  he  pursues  the 
order  last  mentioned.  The  same  writer  informs 
us,  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were 
usually  included  in  two  divisions,  or  volumes  ;  the 
first  containing  the  Gospels  ;  the  second.  The  Acts 
and  The  Epistles ;  the  book  of  Revelation  being 
omitted. 

Chrysostom  follov^'s  an  order,  which  appears  to 
be  peculiar  :  he  places  first.  The  Fourteen  Epistles 
of  Paul  ;  next,  The  Four  Gospels  ;  then, the  Acts  ; 
and  in  the  last  place,  The  Catholic  Epistles. 

Gelasius  places  Revelation  before  The  Catholic 
Epistles. 

The  Apostolical  Canon,  as  it  is  called,  con- 
tains tlie  following  catalogue  ;  The  Four  Gospels, 
Fourteen  Ejiistles  of  Paul,  Seven  Catholic  Epis- 
tles, Two  Epistles  of  Clement,  The  Constitutions, 
and  The  Acts.  If  this  were,  indeed,  the  genuine 
t'anon  of  the  Apostles,  as  the  title  imports,  it  would 


167 

he  decisive,  and  all  other  authorities  would  he  su- 
perfluous ;  but  it  is  acknowlcdojcd,  by  all  good 
critics,  that  it  is  spurious,  and  of  no  authority  in 
settling  the  early  Canon. 

The  order  of  the  Four  Gospels  has  generally 
been,  as  in  our  copies,  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke, 
John.  Ircnaeus,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Athanasius, 
The  council  of  Laodioea,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Amphilochius,  The  Syrian  Catalogues,  Jerome, 
Rufin,  Augustine,  The  Alexandrian  Manuscript 
with  most  others,   agree  in  this  order. 

But  that  this  order  was  not  uniform,  appears 
from  Tertullian,  who  arranges  them  thus,  Matthew, 
John,  I^uke,  JVIark.  And  the  same  order  of  the 
Gospels  is  followed, in  the  very  ancient  Manuscript, 
commonly  called.  Codex  Cantabrgiensis. 

There  is  very  little  variation  observed,  in  the 
arrangement  of  Paul's  Epistles  ;  they  are  generallj'' 
found  in  the  same  order,  as  we  have  them  in  our 
copies  ;  but  this  is  not  universally  the  case  ;  for 
in  some  copies.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  occu- 
pies the  Fourteenth  place  ainong  Paul's  Epistles, 
and  in  others  the  Tenth.  But  in  all  copies.  The 
E[)istle  to  the  Romans,  stands  first  ;  though  not 
first,  in  the  order  of  time. 

With  respect  to  tlie  time,  when  the  Gospeh 
were  written,  no  precise  information  can  be  ob- 
tained, as  ancient  authors  differ  considerably,  on 
the  subject.  It  seems  to  be  agreed,  however,  that 
they  were  not  published  immediately  after  the 
ascension  of  Christ:  nor,  all  at  the  same  time.   The 


168 

best  thin^  wliicl)  we  can  do,  is  to  place  before  the 
reader,  the  principal  testin^onies  of  the  Fathers, 
and  leave  him  to  judge  for  himself.* 

The  earliest  writer  who  says  any  thina;  explicitly 
on  this  subject,  is,  Ieen^us  ;  but  he  does  not  in- 
form us  wh?t  time  intervened  between  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  and  the  writing  of  these  Gospels. 
Bis  words  are  ;  *'  For  we  have  not  received  the 
knowledge  of  the  way  of  salvation,  from  any  others 
than  those  by  whom  the  Gospel  has  been  brought 
lo  us,  which  Gospc)  they  first  preached,  and  after- 
wards, by  the  will  of  God,  con)mitted  to  writing, 
that  for  time  to  ^ome  it  might  be  the  foundation 
and  pillar  of  our  faith.  Nor,  may  any  say  that 
they  preached  before  they  had  a  competerit  know- 
lerlge  of  the  Gospel  ;  for  after  that  our  Lord  rose 
from  the  dead,  and  they  were  endued,  from  above, 
with  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  had 
come  down  upon  them,  they  received  a  perfect 
Ijnnwledge  of  all  things.  They  went  forth  to  all 
the  ends  of  the  earth,  declaring  to  men  the  bless- 
ing of  heavenly  peace  ;  having  all  of  them,  and 
every  one  of  them,  the  Gospel  of  God  " 

Now  let  it  be  considered,  that  Irenaeus  was  the 
Disciple  of  Polycarp,  who  was  the  disciple  of  the 
apostle  J(.hn,  and  this  testimony  will  have  great 
weight,  in  confirming  the  fact,  that  the  Gospels 
were  written  by  the  apostles,  some  time  after  they 

*  The  testimonies  here  adduced,  are  for  the  most  part, 
selected  from  the  Collections  of  Lardner,  to  whose  works 
the  reader  is  referred. 


16^ 

l>es:an  to  proarh.  And  tliat,  wherever  the  apostles 
went,  they  preached  the  same  Guspel  to  thu  peo- 
ple. 

ErsEBius,  to  wlioni  we  arc  ohIiyj;ed  so  often  to 
have  recourse,  as  a  witness  of  ancient  Ecclesiasti- 
cal facts,  does  not  fail  us  here  ;  "Those  admirable 
and  truly  divine  men,"  says  he,  "the  apostles  of 
Christ,  did  not  attempt  to  deliver  the  doctrine  of 
their  master,  with  the  artifice  and  eloquence  of 
words.  .  .  .  Nor  were  they  concerned  about  writ- 
ing books,  beinjj;  eng;aired  in  a  more  excellent  min- 
istry, which  is  above  all  human  power.  Insomuch 
that  Paul,  the  most  al)le  of  all,  in  the  furniture  of 
words  and  ideas,  has  left  nothing  in  writing;  but  a 
few  Epistles. — ''  Nor  were  the  rest  of  our  Saviour's 
followers  unacquainted  with  these  thin°;s,  as  the 
seventy  disciples  and  many  others,  besides  the 
twelve  apostles.  Nevertheless,  of  all  the  disciples 
of  our  Lord,  Matthew  and  John  only  have  left  us 
any  Memoirs  ;  who,  also,  as  we  have  been  inform- 
ed, were  impelled  to  write,  by  a  kind  of  neces- 
sity." 

Theodore  of  Mopsuesta,  who  lived  in  the  lat- 
ter part  of  the  fourth  century,  has  left  us  the  fol- 
lowing; testimony  ;  "  After  the  Lord's  ascension 
to  heaven,  the  di^ciples  staid  a  good  while  at  Je- 
rusalem, visiting  the  cities  in  the  virinity,  and 
preaching  chiefly  to  the  Jews  :  and  the  great  Paul 
was  appointed,  openly  to  preach  the  Gospf'l  to  th? 
Gentiles.'' 


170 

"In  nroefss  of  Divine  Providence,  they,  not  be- 
ins;  allovverl  to  confine  ihenis  Ives  to  any  one  part 
of  the  earth,  vvere  conchicted  to  remote  countries. 
Peter  went  to  Rome  ;  the  others  elsewhere.  John 
took  up  his  abode  at  Ephesus,  visifina;,  however, 
other  parts  of  Asia.  .  .  .  About  this  time,  the 
Evangelists,  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke,  publish- 
ed their  G  >spels,  which  were  soon  soread  over 
the  world,  and  were  received  by  all  the  faithful 
with  great  regard.  .  .  .  That,  numerous  Christians 
in  Asia  having  brought  these  Gospels  to  John, 
earnestly  entreated  him  to  write  a  further  account 
of  such  things  as  were  needful  to  be  known,  and 
had  been  omitted  by  the  rest  ;  with  whicli  re- 
quest he  complied." 

By  divers  Christian  writers  of  antiquity,  it  has 
been  asserted,  that  Mark,  the  disciple  and  inter- 
preter of  Peter,  at  the  earnest  request  of  the  breth- 
eren  at  Rome,  wrote  a  short  Gospel,  according  to 
what  he  had  heard  related  by  Peter.  This  testi- 
mony among  others  is  given  byJ^ROME,  in  his 
book  of  Illustkious  Men. 

It  is  probable,  that  Peter  did  not  visit  Rome  be- 
fore the  reign  of  Nero  ;  perhaps,  not  until  Paul 
had  returned  a  second  time  to  that  city,  which 
must  have  been  as  late  as  the  year  A.  D.  63,  or 
A.  D.  64.  Nnw,  as  the  brethren  requested  of 
JSlark,  to  give  them  in  writing  the  substance  of 
Peter's  preachiig,  his  gospel  could  not  have  b^-en 
written,  at  an  earlier  period.     And,  it  would  seem, 


171 

if  tl>is  fiict  l)P  undoubted,  that  thev  had,  until  (his 
timr,  n^'.'t*r  seen  a  writlcn  (iu.spel  ;  .n-!.  probably, 
did  not  know  that  there  was  one  in  existence. 

The  Jewish  war,  according  lo  Josephns,  began 
iii  the  year  of  our  Lord  Gli,  and  ended  in  Septem- 
ber, of  the  year  70  ;  when  the  city  and  temple 
were  brought  to  desolation.  Now,  there  is  strong 
probable  evidence,  that  the  Gospels  of  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  Luke,  w(M'e  finished  before  this  war 
commenced  ;  that  is,  before  the  year  of  our  Lord 
sixty  six.  Each  of  them  contains  the  predictions 
of  our  Lord,  respecting  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  there  is  no  hint  in  any  of  them,  that  the 
remarkable  ev'ents  connected  with  this  ov^ertbrow, 
had  begun  to  make  their  appearance.  But  there 
are  some  expressions  in  these  (iospels,  which  prob- 
ably indicate,  that  the  writers  thought,  that  these 
\von<lerful  events  were  at  hand.  Such  as  the  fol- 
loiving  admonition,  let  him  that  reaiiethy  under- 
stand. 

It  is  certain,  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  could 
not  have  been  finished  before  A  D.  6si,  or  63,  be- 
cause the  history  which  it  contains  comes  down  to 
that  time.  The  Gospel  by  Luke,  was  probably 
written  a  short  time  before.  At  least,  this  seems 
to  be  the  common  opinion  of  learned  men.  Jerome 
supposes,  that  he  composed  his  Gospel  at  Home  : 
Grotius  thinks,  that  when  Paul  left  Rome,  Luke 
went  into  Greece,  and  there  wrote  his  Gos^xil  an* 
the  Acts. 


172 

Prom  the  introduction  to  Luke's  gospel,  it  would 
seem,  that  he  knew  nothing  of  any  authentic,  wj  it- 
ten  gospel  at  that  time  ;  for  he  cannot  be  supposed 
to  refer  to  such,  when  he  says,  Forastnuch  as 
many  have  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth  in  order 
a  declaration  of  those  things  which  are  most 
surely  believed  atnons;  tis  ;  and  if  he  had  known 
tliat  Matthew  had  written  a  gospel,  he  could  not 
easily  have  avoided  some  reference  to  it  in  this 
place.  But  the  inference  of  Lardner  from  this 
fact,  that  no  authentic  gospel  had  been  written  be- 
fore this  time, is  unauthorized,  and  repugnant  to  all 
the  testimony  which  we  have  on  the  subject.  The 
gospel  of  Matthew  might  have  been  circulating  for 
some  time  among  the  churches  in  Judea,  and  yet 
not  be  known  to  Luke  whose  labours  and  travels 
led  him,  in  company  with  Paul,  to  visit  the  Gen- 
tile countries  and  cities.  If  we  pay  any  regard  to 
the  opmions  of  tnose,  who  lived  nearest  the 
times  of  the  Apostles,  we  must  believe,  that  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  was  lirst  written,  and  in  the 
vernacular  dialect  of  Judea,  commonly  called  He- 
bj  ew.  The  writer  of  this  gospel  is  also  called  Le- 
vi, 'he  son  of  Alpheus.  He  was  a  Galilean,  by 
n  tiion,  anfl  a  Publican  by  profession.  When  called 
to  followChr'St,  he  was  sitting  at  the  receipt  of  cus- 
tom, where  the  taxes  were  paid,  but  he  immediate- 
ly left  all  these  temporal  concerus,ynd  attached  him- 
self to  Christ,  who  afterwards  selected  him  as  one 
of  the  Twtslve.     From  this  time  he  seems  to  have 


173 

been  conslantly  with  Christ  unfil  his  crucifixion, 
of  which  event  he  was  doubtless  a  witness  ;  as  lie 
was  also  of  tlic  resurrcciion  and  asqension  of  liis 
Lord.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  he  v\as  present 
with  his  brethren, and  partook  of  the  rich  spiritual 
endowments,  which  were  then  bestowed  on  the 
apostles.  ]3ut,  afterwards,  there  is  no  explicit 
mention  of  him  in  the  New  'I'estament.  In  liis 
own  cataloojue  of  the  Twelve,  his  name  occupies 
th*^  eig;hth  place,  as  it  does  in  the  Acts;  but 
in  tlip  lists  of  the  apostles,  contained  in  the  e;os- 
pels  of  Luke  and  Mark,  it  occupies  the  seventh 
place. 

There  is  an  almost  total  obscurity,  resting  on  the 
history  of  this  Apostle  and  Evang;elist.  The  scene 
of  his  labours,  after  he  left  Judea,  seems  to  have 
been  in  regions,  of  which  we  possess  ver}'  little  ac- 
curste  infnrmntion  lo  this  day.  But  whether  he 
had  Parthia  and  Persia,  or  P^thiopia,  for  the  field 
of  his  apostolical  labours,  the  ancients  are  not 
agreed.  It  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  he 
shouM  have  preached  the  gospel. and  planted  church- 
es, in  each  of  these  countries.  The  historian  Soc- 
rates in  his  distribution  of  the  apostles  among  the 
countries  of  the  globe,  assigns  Ethiopia  to  Mat- 
thew, Parthia  to  Thomas,  and  India  to  Bartholo- 
mew. 

The  testimony  of  EusEBirs  is  as  follows  ;  "This 
then  was  the  ptate  of  the  Jews,  but  the  apostles 
and  disciples  of  our  Lord,  being  Uispersod  abroad, 


174 

prPThed  in  the  whole  worlH,  Thomas  in  Parthia  ; 
An  irew  in  Sythia  ;  John  in  Asia,  who  having 
lived  there  a  long;  time,  died  at  Epliesus.  Pe- 
ter preached  to  the  dispersed  Jews,  in  Pontus, 
Galutia.Bytliinia,  Cappadocia,  and  Asia  ;  at  length, 
coniipo:;  to  Rome,  he  was  thtre  crucified,  with  his 
liPi'd  turned  down  towards  the  earth,  at  his  own 
r*  quost.  Paul  also  died  a  martyr  at  Rome,  as  we 
are  informed  by  Origen,  in  the  third  Tome  of  his 
work  on  CJenesis."  But  P^usebius  makps  no  men- 
tion of  the  arostle  Mathew  ;  nor  does  Jerome,  in 
his  account  of  Illustrious  IMen. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  mentions  a  circumstance 
of  this  apostle's  mode  of  life,  but  nothing  more  ;  he 
says,  ''That  he  was  accustomed  to  use  a  very  spare 
diet,  eating  veii;etablf,s,  but  no  flesh." 

Chrysostom,  in  one  of  his  Homilies,  gives  the 
character  of  Matthew,  but  furnishes  us  with  no 
facts. 

It  is  probable,  therefore,  thit  very  little  was 
linown  ill  the  West,  respi  cting  th;  lives,  labours, 
and  death,  of  those  apostles  who  travelled  far  to  the 
East.  None  of  thei)i,it  is  probable,  ever  returned; 
and  there  existed  no  regular  channels  for  the  com- 
nmnicaiionof  intelli/ence.,  from  ihose  tlisiant  re- 
gions. The  honour  of  mart}  rdom  has  been  given 
to  them  all,  and  the  thing  is  not  im})robable,  but 
there  are  lO  authentic  records,  from  which  we  con 
derive  any  certain  information  on  this  subject  i  he 
Fathers, whose  wriungs  have  come  down  to  us,seem 


175 

to  have  been  a.s  much  in  the  dark  as  \vc  arc,  respect- 
ills' the  preaching  and  death,  of  the  majoriiy  ol' the 
apostles.  There  are,  it  is  true,  traditions  in  Ethi- 
opia an(i  the  East,  in  regard  lb  sbnie  of  »hem,  but 
they  arc  too  uncertain  lo  deserve  any  serious  con- 
sideration. 


SECTIOW     IV. 


TESTIMONIES  TO  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL— TIME  OF 
PUBLICATION— LANGUAGE  IN  WHICH  IT  WAS  ORI- 
GINALLY COMPOSED. 

But  while  we  know  so  little  of  the  apostolical  la- 
bours of  the  Evangelist  Matthew,  it  is  pleasing  to 
find  that  the  testimonies  respecting  the  genuine- 
ness of  his  gospel,  are  so  early  and  full.  To  these 
we  will  now  direct  our  attention. 

Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  who  was  acquaint- 
ed with  the  apostle  John,  expressly  mentions  Mat- 
thew's gospel;  and  asserts,  "  That  he  wrote  the 
divine  oracles  in  Hebrew.'' 

Iren^us,  bishop  of  Lyons,  who  was  born  in 
Asia,  and  was  acquainted  with  Pblycarp,  the  disci- 
ple of  the  apostle  John,  gives  the  following  testi- 
mony ;  "  Matthew,  then  among  the  Jews,  wrote  a 
gOspel  in  their  language,  while  Peter  and^Paul  were 
preaching  at  Rome  ....  And  after  their  decease, 
JVlark,  also  the  disciple  of  Peter,  delivered  to  us 
the  things  which  had  been  preached  by  Peter ;  and 
Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul,  put  down  in  a  book, 
the  gospel  preached  by  him.  Afterwards,  John, 
who  leaned  on  his  Lord's  breast,  published  a  gos- 
pel for  the  inhabitants  of  Asia. " 


177 

In  another  place  he  says,  "  The  gospel  of  Mat- 
thew Wits  deliv<  re«»  to  the  Jews." 

Origen,  who  was  born  in  the  second  century, 
and  wrote  and  flourished,  in  the  bt-j^inning  of  ihe 
third, has  left  us  the  following  testimony,  '^Aecord- 
ing  lo  ihe  traditions  receivd  by  me,  the  first  gos- 
pel was  v\riiten  by  Maithew,  once  a  pubhcau,  af- 
ter war  s  a  disciple  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  dvlivored 
it  to  the  Jewish  believers,  composed  in  the  He- 
brew la  guage. " 

And  in  another  place  he  says,  '<  Matthew  wrote 
for  the  Hebrews." 

Ku>EBius,  who  lived  about  a  hundred  years  la- 
ter than  Origon,  informs  us,  that,  *'Mattnew  hav- 
ing (irst  preached  the  gnspel  to  the  Hebrews,  when 
about  to  go  to  other  ptople,  deliver<;d  to  them,  in 
their  i>wn  language,  the  gospel  wrii  ten  by  himself; 
hy  that  supplying  the  want  of  his  presence  with 
them,  whom  he  was  about  to  leave." 

In  the  Synopsis,  which  has  been  ascribed  to 
Atuanasius,  it  is  said,  "  Matthew  wrote  his  gos- 
pel in  the  Hebrew,  and  published  it  at  Jerusa- 
lem." 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  testifies,  "That  Mathew 
wrote  in  Hebrew." 

EpipHanius  says  the  same,  and  adds,  '*  Mat- 
thew wrote  tirsi,  and  Mark  soon  after  him,  bcinga 
follower  of  Peter  at  Rome," 

GRhG.uY  Nazianzen,  *<That  Matthew  wrotr 
for  the  Hebrews." 

a. 


178 

Ebedjesu,  the  Syrian,  "That  Matthew,  the 
first  Evangelist,  published  his  gospel,  in  Palestine, 
written  in  Hebrew. '^ 

JEEOMKjin  hisCommentary  on  Matthew, testifies, 
that  "The  first  Evangelist  is  Mai;thew,the  Publican, 
surnamedLevijwho  wrote  his  gospel  inJudca,in  the 
Hebrew  language,  chiefly  for  the  Jews,  who  be- 
lieved in  Jesus,  and  did  not  join  ihe  shadow  of  the 
Law  with  the  truth  of  the  gospel." 

Again,  in  bis  book  of  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  he 
says,  "Matthew,  called  also  Levi,  of  a  Publican 
made  an  apostle,  first  of  all  wrote  a  gospel  in  the 
Hebrew  language,  for  the  sake  of  those  in  Judea 
who  believed.  By  whom  it  was  afterwards  trans- 
lated into  Greek  is  uncertain." 

Chrtsostom,  in  his  Introduction  to  this  gospel, 
writes,  "Matthew  is  said  to  have  written  his  gospel 
at  the  request  of  the  Jewish  believers,  who  desired 
him  to  put  down  in  writing,  what  he  had  said  to 
them  by  word  of  mouth  ;  and  it  is  said,  he  wrote 
in  Hebrew." 

It  would  be  unnecessary  to  adduce  any  testimo- 
nies from  later  writers  ;  but  as  they  mention  some 
circumstances,  probably  received  by  tradition,  and 
not  contained  in  the  earlier  testimonies,  I  will  sub- 
join a  few  of  them. 

CosMAS,who  lived  in  the  sixth  century,  reports, 
that  "  Matthew  is  the  first  that  wrote  a  gospel.  A 
persecution  having  arisen  after  the  stoning  of  Steph- 
eli,and  he  having  resolved  to  go  from  that  place, the 


179 

believers  entreated  him,  to  leave  with  them  u 
written  iustruction  ;  with  which  request  he  com- 
plied." 

Another  author  of  this  century,  who  wrote  a  dis- 
course on  Mattlicw,  has  left  this  testimony,  "The  oc- 
casion of  Matthew's  writing  is  said  to  have  been  this, 
there  bfing  a  great  persecution  in  Palestine,  so  that 
there  was  danger  lest  the  faithful  should  be  dispersed; 
that  they  might  not  be  without  teaching,  they  re- 
quested Matthew  to  write  for  them  an  accurate  his- 
tory of  all  Christ's  words  and  works  ;  that  where- 
ever  they  should  be,  they  might  have  with  them 
the  ground  of  their  faith." 

In  the  Paschal  Chronicle,  written  in  the  sev- 
enth century,  it  is  intimated,  that  Matthew  pub- 
lished his  gospel,  about  fifteen  years  after  our 
Lord's  ascension. 

EuTHrMius,inthe  beginning  of  the  twelfth  centu- 
ry, says,  "  That  this  gospel  was  first  written  in  the 
Hebrew  language,  for  the  Jewish  believers,  eight 
years  after  our  Lord's  ascension." 

From  these  testimonies,  it  appears,  that  the  Fa- 
thers had  no  certain  knowledge  of  tlie  exact  time 
when  Matthew  wrote  his  gospel.  Irenaus  re- 
fers it  to  the  period  when  Paul  and  Peter  were 
preaching  at  Rome,  but  he  speaks  vaguely  on  the 
subject. 

The  writers  who  mention  a  precise  timc,livedat 
too  late  a  period  to  give  testimony  on  this  subject. 
But  all  agree,  that  this  was  the  first  gospel  written. 


180 

Among  the  moderns,  there  is  much  diversity  oi 
opinion,  as  might  be  expected,  where  there  is  lit- 
tle else  than  conjecture  to  guide  them. 

Lardner  and  Basnage  supposed  that  this  gos- 
pel was  not  written  before  A.  D.  64. 

Cave  thought  that  it  was  written  fifteen  years  af- 
ter the  ascension  of  Christ. 

Jer.  Jones  is  in  favour  of  that  opinion,  which 
places  it  eight  years  after  the  ascension. 

Grotius  and  G.  J.  Vossius  are  of  the  same 
opinion.     So  also  is  Wetstein. 

But,  TiLLEMONT  Carries  it  up  to  the  third  year 
after  the  crucifixion  of  our  Saviour.* 

Lardner  and  Percy  have  adduced  arguments 
for  a  late  origin  of  this  gospel, derived  from  internal 
evidence,but  they  are  of  very  inconsiderable  weight. 

As  it  is  agreed  that  it  was  written  before  Mat- 
thew left  Judea  to  preach  the  gospel  in  foreign 
parts,  and  as  this  event  seems  to  have  occurred  af- 
ter the  persecution  which  was  raised  in  Judea; 
against  the  church,  it  seems  probable,  that  they  are 
nearest  the  truth,  who  place  it  about  eight  years 
after  the  ascension  of  Christ ;  which  date  unites 
more  writers  in  its  support  than  any  other. 

Not  only  the  date,  but  the  original  language 
of  this  gospel  has  been  made  a  subject  of  contro- 
versy.    By  the  testimonies  already  cited,  it  seems 

*  Tomline,Townson,  Horne,Tovvnsend,  &c.  plead  for  an 
oUrly  origin  of  this  Gospel,  referring  it  to  A.D.  36,  or  A.D..  3X 


ISl 

tliat  there  was  but  one  opinion  among;  the  ancients, 
in  ref;;ar:l  to  this  matter.  VVitli  one  voice  they  in- 
form us,  that  it  was  written  in  Hebrew  ;  or  in  the 
vernacular  tongue  of  the  Jews,  which  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  by  the  Christian  Fathers,  is  called  He- 
brew. This  lan^UMge  is  now  called  Syro-Chal- 
daic,  or  Western  Aramean,  but  it  consisted  chiefly 
of  words  derived  from  a  Hebrew  origin,  and  was 
in  fact,  the  Hebrew  corrupted  by  a  large  mixture 
of  foreign  words,  and  by  various  changes  in  the  pre- 
fixes and  affixes  of  the  words.  This  was  the  lan- 
guf\ge  in  which  Jesus  Christ  spoke,  and  delivered 
all  his  discourses  ;  and  which  the  apostles  were  ac- 
customed to  speak,  from  their  childhood. 

Although  the  Greek  language  was  understood 
by  all  the  learned  in  Judea,  at  this  time,  and  by- 
many  of  the  people,  yet  it  was  not  the  vernacular 
language  of  the  Jews,  dwelling  in  Palestine.  In  a 
book  composed  for  the  immediate  use  of  the  church- 
es in  Judea,  it  was  necessary,  that  it  should  be  in 
that  language  which  they  all  understood  ;  which 
was  neither  pure  Hebrew,  nor  Greek.  The  testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers,  is  therefore  strengthened  by 
a  consideration  of  the  nature  f>f  the  case.  And  if 
it  were  not  so,  yet  when  the  judgment  of  modern 
critics  stands  opposed  to  the  universal  testimony 
of  the  ancients, in  reg;ard  to  a  matter  of  fact,  which 
occurred  not  long  before  their  time,  there  ought  to 
be  no  hesitation  which  is  most  deserving  of  credit. 

There  is,  however,  one  difficulty  attending  this 


182 

opinion,  which  is,  that  it  supposes  that  theorrginal 
of  this  gospel  is  lost,  and  that  we  have  nothing  but 
a  translation,  which  opinion  would  lessen  its  Canon- 
ical authority. 

It  must  be  confessed.,  that  this  is  a  consequence 
of  a  serious  kind,  and  one  which  ought  not  to  be 
received  respecting  any  Canonical  book,  without 
necessit}'.  But  does  this  conclusion  necessarily 
ibllow  from  the  admission,  that  this  gospel  was 
originally  composed  in  the  Hebi'ew  language  ? 
Might  there  not  have  been  a  version  immediately 
prepared  by  the  writer  himself,  or  by  some  other 
person  under  his  supermtendence  ?  This  being  the 
first  gospel,  that  was  composed,  it  would  naturally 
be  in  great  request,  with  all  Christians  who  knew 
of  its  existence,  and  as  none  but  the  Jewish  Christ- 
ians could  understand  it,  as  first  published,  it  is  ex- 
ceedingly probable,  that  a  request  was  made  of  the 
author  to  publish  an  edition  of  it  in  Greek  also,  by 
those  who  did  not  understand  the  Hebrew  ;  or  by 
such  as  were  going  to  preach  the  Gospel  in  coun- 
tries where  the  Greek  language  was  in  common 
use. 

It  has  been  considered  a  strong  objection  to  the 
Hebrew  original  of  this  Gospel,  that  no  person, 
whose  writings  have  come  dowa  to  us,  has  in- 
timated that  he  had  ever  seen  it ;  and  from  the 
earliest  times  it  seems  to  have  existed  in  the  Greek 
language.  But  this  fact  is  perfectly  accordant 
Tvith  the  supposition  now  madej  for,  the  desolation 


183 

of  Judea,  and  dispersion  of  the  Jewish  Christians, 
havina;  fakon  |>laco  within  a  few  years  after  the 
publication  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  thi"  copies  of  the 
original  Hebrew  would  be  confined  to  the  Jewish 
coi' verts,  and  as  other  Cliristians  had  copies  in  the 
Greek,  of  equal  aut.enticity  with  the  Hebrew,  no 
inquiries  would  be  made  after  the  latter.  These 
Jewisii  Christians,  after  their  removal,  dwindled 
away  in  a  short  time,  and  a  large  part  of  them  be- 
came erroneous  in  their  faith  ;  and  though  ihey 
retained  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  Matthew,  they 
altered  and  corrupted  it,  to  suit  their  own  heretical 
opinions.  There  is  reason  to  believe,  that  the 
Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes  was  the  identical  Gospel 
of  Matthew,  which  in  process  of  time,  was  greatly 
mutilated  and  corrupted  by  the  El)ionites.  Of  this 
Gospel  much  is  said  by  the  Fathers,  and  in  the 
proper  place  we  shall  give  some  accouut  of  it. 

Tlie  only  remaining  objection,  of  any  weight, 
against  the  ancient  opinion,  is,  that  the  Gospel  ac- 
cording  to  Matthew,  as  we  now  have  it,  has  no 
appearance  of  being  a  translation,  but  has  the  air 
and  style  of  an  original.  But  if  the  hypothesis, 
suggested  above,  be  adopted,  this  objection  also 
will  vanish  ;  for  according  to  this,  the  Greek  is  an 
original  as  well  as  the  Hebrew,  it  having  been 
writt?n  by  Matthew  himself,  or  by  some  disciple 
under  his  direction.  But  whether  the  Greek  of 
St,  Matthew;  was  written  by  himself  or  not,  if  is 


184 

certain,  that  it  was  not  later  than  the  Apostolic 
age,  and  received  the  approbation  of  apostles  or 
Apostolic  men,  which  is  sufficient  to  establish  its 
authenticity.* 

*  The  learned  world  have  been  nearly  equally  divided 
on  the  question,  whether  Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  in 
Hebrew  or  Greek.  In  favour  of  the  former  opinion,  may 
be  cited,  Bellarmine,  Grotius,  Casaubon,  Walton,  Tomline, 
Cave,  Hammond,  Mill,  Harwood,  Owen,  Campbell,  A. 
Clarke,  Simon,  Tillemont,  Pritius,  Du  Pin,  Calmet,  Mi- 
chaelis,  and  others*  In  favour  of  the  Greek  origin  of  this 
Gospel  the  names  are  not  less  numerous,  nor  less  respect- 
able. Among  these  may  be  mentioned,  Erasmus,  Paraeusj 
Calvin,  Le  Clerc,  Fabricius,  Pfeiffer,  Lightfoot,  Beausobre, 
Basnage,  Wetstem,  Rumpoeus.  Whitby,  Edehnan,  Hoff- 
man, Moldenhawer  Viser,  Harles,  Jones,  Jortin,  Lardner> 
Hey,  Hales,  Hewlett,  and  others. 

The  two  opinions  were  supported  by  a  weight  of  argu- 
ment and  authority,  so  nearly  balanced,  that  Dr.  Townson, 
and  a  few  others,  have  adopted  a  middle  course,  viz ;  the 
opinion  stated  above,  that  there  were  two  originals ;  by 
which  theory  all  difficulties  are  removed.  The  only  objec- 
tion is,  the  want  of  evidence.  Home,  and  Townsend  have 
adopted  this  opinion.  See  Home's  Introd.  Vol.  iv.  Part  h. 
C.  ii.  Sec  ii.  p-  287. 


SECTIOSr      V, 

aOSPEL  OF  MARK— ON  \VH\r  OCCVSIOV  PURI,1SHKD 
— \SCR1BKD  ro  THE  DICIA-TION  OF  PE I  F.U,  UY 
ALL  THE  FATHERS. 

The  author  of  the  second  Gospel,  as  they  stand 
in  the  Canon,  was  Mark  ;  the  same  who  is  men- 
tioned in  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  v.  13;  but 
whether  he  was  the  same  as  John  Mark,  of  Je- 
yusalem,  who  travelled  for  a  while  with  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  has  been  doubted  by  Grotius,  Cave, 
Dupin,  and  Tillemont ;  but  the  common  opinion 
is  in  its  favour,  and  the  objections  to  it,  are  not  of 
much  weight :  and  as  thftre  is  no  clear  evi'lence, 
that  there  were  two  persons  of  this  nam&,  mention- 
ed in  Scripture,  I  shall  consider  all  that  is  said  of 
Mark,  as  having  reference  to  the  same  person. 

Paul  was  offended  at  him  because  he  declined 
accompanying  him  and  Barnabas  trn  the  wliole  tour 
which  they  took,  to  preach  the  Gospel  ;  for,  when 
they  came  to  Perga,  Mark  departed  from  th^m, 
and  returned  to  Jt-rurtalcm.  And  when  Paul  and 
Barnabas  were  about  to  undertake  a  second  journey, 
together,  the  latter  insisted  on  taking  Mark,  as 
their  minister,  but  Paul,  would  by  no  means  con- 
sent to  it,  because  he  had  forsakon  them  on  their 
first  mission.     This  dilTereuce  of  opinion  gave  rise 


186 

(.0  a  sharp  altercation,  which  terminated  in  the  separ- 
ation of  these  venerable  colleagues.  Mark  now  tra- 
velled with  Barnabas,  but  probably,  soon  afterwards 
attached  himself  to  Peter,  with  whom  he  seems  to 
have  continued  until  the  death  of  that  apostle. 

But  Paul  himself  seems  to  have  been  reconciled 
to  Mark,  and  to  have  valued  his  assistance,  in  the 
work  of  the  ministry  ;  for,  in  his  second  Epistle 
to  Timothy,  he  writes,  *'  Take  Mark  and  bring 
him  with  thee  for  he  is  profitable  unto  me  for 
the  ministry/.  He  also  mentions  him  in  his  Epis- 
tle to    Philemon. 

When  this  gospel  was  composed,  has  not  heea 
particularly  mentioned  by  any  ancient  author, 
except  that  it  is  said  to  have  been  after  Peter  came 
to  Rome,  which  could  not  be  much  earlier  than 
A.  D.  62,  or  A.  D.  63.  It  is  stated,  that  Mark 
was  requested  by  the  brethren  at  Rome  to  put 
down  in  writing  the  substance  of  Peter's  preach- 
ing ;  and  on  this  account,  this  Gospel  among  the 
primitive  Christians  was  as  familiarly  know  by  the 
name  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  as  of  Mark.  This 
circuins^tance  has  led  some  to  assert  that  Mark 
wrote  his  Gospel  in  Latin,  as  this  was  the  language 
of  Rome  ;  but  in  those  days,  almost  all  the  Romans, 
understood  Greek  ;  and  the  Jewish  converts  who 
composed  a  large  portion  of  the  first  churches,  un- 
tierstood   Greek   much  better   than   Latin,      But 

2  Tim,  iv,  11,  Phil,  24, 


187 

there  is  no  nred  to  nrguo  his  point.  There  is  no 
ancient  anihi»r  who  ti-siifit's  ;hat  Mdik  wnte  in 
Latin.  The  tesiimony  is  uniform,  that  he  wrote 
in  G»eek. 

Baronius  is  almost  the  only  leirucl  man  who 
has  advfK'atcd  the  Latin  oria;inaJ  i.f  the  Oospel  of 
MtIc,  and  he  h  <s  iioihing  to  produce  in  fivonr  of 
this  opiiion,  fnvn  anti;  lity,  except  the  subsr rip, 
tion  to  th'-  Syriac,  Arabic,  and  Fer>ic  versions  of 
the  New  Testament,  where,  .tit  the  end  of  Mark's 
Gospel,  ii  is  said,  '*  He  ^•poke  and  preached  in  Lafin 
at  Rome  ,"  but  this  does  not  say  that  he  wrote  his 
Gospel  in  Latin. 

But  these  subscriptions  are  of  very  little  author- 
ity in  matter>  of  tliis  kind.  No  one  knows  wheti, 
or  by  whom,  they  were  placed  there  :  ami  althouu;h 
three  version^  are  mentioned,  they  m  ike  up  no 
more  than  one  witness,  for  probably  all  the  others 
borrowed  this  insciiption  froin  the  Syriac. 

AuGusTiNi;  called  Mark,  the  abridgcr  of  Mat- 
thew ;  and  it  must  be  confessed,  that  he  often  uses 
the  same  wordx,  and  tells  more  concisely  what  the 
other  h  id  related  more  copiously  ;  yet  there  is 
satisfactory  evidence,  tl,a;  Mark's  Gospel  is  an  ori- 
ginal work.  There  are  many  thinii;s  which  arc  not 
in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  some,  mentioned 
by  that  Evangelist,are  here  related  with  additional 
circumstances. 

All  authors  do  not  agree  that  Mark  wrote  his 
Gospel  at  Konae,  but  some  think  at  Alexandria : 


188 

fhe  former  opinion,  however,  was  received  by  the 
Falhei  -5  vvi;h  almost  universal  consent. 

Some  of  th-;  Testimonies  of  ihe  Fathers  respect- 
ing ir.is  (iosppl,  will  now  be  given. 

El  ^!  BTc's,  out  of  Papias  and  a  lost  work  of 
Clbaient  of  Al-'X.>nfiria,  relates,  "  That  when 
Ptter,iii  th.-  rcigi!  of  Clau'iins,  had  come  to  Rome, 
ax,  '  hdd  defeaifid  Simon  Ma^rus,  thr  pe  pie  were 
So  inflamed '.  ith  love  for  the  Chi'iatian  truths,  as 
not  to  be  satished  with  the  hearinj^  of  them,  unless 
they  also  had  them  wiitttu  down.  Tha:,accordi!ig- 
ly,triey,  with  earnest  entreaties,  applii  d  tht  mselves 
to  Mark,  the  companion  of  Peter,  and  whose 
Gospel  we  no-.^  have,  praying  him  that  he  would 
write  down  for  them  and  leave  with  them,  an  ac- 
count of  the  doctrines  which  had  been  preached  to 
tht  in  :  that  tht-y  did  not  desist  in  their  request, 
till  they  had  prevailed  on  him,  and  pr  jcured  his 
writing  ihat,  which  is  now  the  Oosp  -1  of  Mark. 
Thai  when  Peter  came  t.^  know  this,  he  was,  by 
the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  pleased  with  the 
request  of  the  people,  and  confirmed  the  Gospel 
wiiich  was  written  for  the  use  of  the  Churches."**^ 

Thi  same  Eusebius  relaies,in  anoilierpart  of  his 
works,  what  Papjas  had  testified  concerning 
Mark's  Gospel,  "That  Mark,  wiio  wa.--  Peter's 
intei  |jr^  ier,  exacily  wrote  down  whaisoever  he  re- 
membered,   thougii  not  in  the  same  order  of  time 

=*'  Ecc.  Hist.  Lib.  II.  c  25. 


189 

io  which  the  sevei'al  things  were  said  or  done  by 
Christ  ;  for  he  neither  heard  nor  foHowefl  Christ, 
but  vvas  a  companion  of  Peter,  and  composcil  his 
Gospel,  rather  with  the  intent  of  the  people's  pro- 
fit, than  writing  a  regular  history  ;  so  that  he  is  in 
no  faidt,  if  he  wro'c  some  things  according  to  his 
memory,  he  designing  no  more  than  to  omit  nothing 
which  he  had  heard,  and  to  relate  nothing  false,"* 

Another  testimony,  from  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, is  given  by  Eusebius,  in  which  it  is  said, 
*' When  Peter  was  publicly  preaching  the  Gospel 
at  Rome,  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  many 
of  the  converts  desired  Mark,  as  having  been  a  long 
■companion  of  Peter,  and  who  well  remembered 
what  he  preached,  to  write  down  his  discourses  : 
that  upon  this  he  composed  his  Gospel,  and  gave 
it  to  those  who  made  this  request,  which  when 
Peter  knew,  he  neither  obstructed  nor  encouraged 
the  work."t 

iRENiEus  says,  "  That  after  the  death  of  Peter 
and  Paul,  who  had  been  preaching  at  Rome,  Mark 
the  disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter  wrote  dowa 
what  he  had  heard  him  preach." 

Tertullian  informs  us,  '*  That  the  Gospel  pub- 
lished by  Mark  may  be  reckoned  Peter's,  whose 
interpreter  lie  was." 

Origen  adds,  "  That  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  the  dictates  of  Peter." 

*  Ecc.  Hist.  Lib.  iii.  c.  39.  f  Lib-  vi.  c.  14. 

R 


190 

Jerome  tells  us,  "  That  Mark  the  disciple  and 
interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  a  short  Gospel,  from 
what  he  had  heard  of  Peter,  at  the  request  of  the 
brethren  at  Rome,  which  when  Peter  knew,  he 
approved,  and  published  it  in  our  churches,  com- 
manding the  reading  of  it  by  his  own  authority.'* 
Besides  these  testimonies  which  are  very  explicit? 
and  all  go  to  show,  that  Mark  received  his  Gospel 
from  the  preaching  of  Peter,  there  are  some  inter- 
nal evidences  which  look  the  same  way.  There 
are  in  the  other  Evangelists  several  circumstances 
and  facts  which  make  very  much  for  the  credit  of 
Peter,  not  one  of  which  is  hinted  at  in  this  Gospel. 
Particular  instances  of  this  kind  may  be  read,  in 
the  Third  Volume  of  Jones  on  the  Canon. 

Of  the  Canonical  authority  of  this  Gospel,  no  one 
of  the  ancients,  I  believe,  ever  entertained  a  doubt. 
Some  of  the  moderns,  however,  have  question- 
ed whether  we  have  any  evidence,  that  Mark  and 
Luke  wrote  by  a  plenary  inspiration,  since  they 
were  not  apostles.  But  that  Mark's  Gospel  is  Ca- 
nonical, is  established  by  all  the  rules  applicable  to 
the  case.  It  was  always  contained  in  the  early 
catalogues;  was  read  as  Scripture  in  the  churches  ; 
was  quoted  as  Scripture  by  the  Fathers  ;  was  in- 
serted in  the  earliest  versions  ;  and  never  doubted 
formerly, by  any  christian  writer.  But  this  subject 
will  be  resumed,  hereafter. 

Ettsebius  reports,    ''That   Peter,    out  of  the 
abundance  of  his  modesty,  did  not  think  himself 


191 

worthy  to  write  a  Gospel  ;  but  Mark, who  was  his 
iriend  and  disciple, is  said  to  have  recorded  Peter's 
relations, and  the  acts  of  Jesus.'*  And  again,  "  Pe- 
ter testifies  these  things  of  himself,  for  all  things  re- 
corded by  Mark,  are  said  to  be  memoirs  of  Peter's 
discourses." 

In  the  Synopsis,  ascribed  to  Athanasius,  it  is 
said,  "That  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark  waS 
dictated  by  Peter,  at  Rome,  alid  p;iblished  by 
Mark  ;  and  preached  by  him  in  Alexandria,  Pen- 
tapolis,  and  Lybia." 

The  testimony  of  Epiphanius  is,  "That  Mat. 
thew  wrote  first,  and  Mark  soon  after  him,  being 
a  companion  of  Peter,  at  Rome  ; — that  Mark  was 
one  of  the  seventy  disciples,  and  likewise  one  ol 
those  who  were  offmded  at  the  words  of  Christ, 
recorded  in  the  sixth  chapt'?r  of  the  Gospel  of 
John  ; — that  he  then  forsook  the  Saviour,  but  was 
afterwards  reclaimed  by  Peter,  and  being  filled 
with  the  Spirit,  wrote  a  Gospel." 

Gregory  N azianzen  says,  * '  That  Mark  wrote 
his  Gospel  for  the  Italians." 

Chrysostom  testifies,  that  ''Mark  wrote  in 
Egypt  at  the  request  of  the  believers  there  ;"  but 
in  another  place,  he  says,  **lt  cannot  be  ascertained 
in  what  place  each  of  the  Evangelists  wrote." 

Victor  informs  us,  «  That  Mark  was  also  called 
John,  and  was  the  vSon  of  Mary  ; — that  he  tvrote 
a  Gospel  after  Matthew  ; — that  for  a  while  he  ac- 
companied Paul,   and  Barnabas  his  relation,  but 


192 

when  he  came  to  Rome,  he  joined  Peter.  When 
he  was  obliged  to  quit  Rome,  he  was  requested  by 
the  brethren  to  write  a  history  of  his  preaching, 
and  of  his  heavenly  doctrine  ;  with  which  request 
he  readily  complied." 

CosMAs  of  Alexandria, writes,  "  That  Mark  the 
second  Evangelist,  wrote  a  Gospel  at  Rome,  by 
the  dictalion  of  Peter." 

CEcuMEMUs  says,  "  This  John,  who  also  is 
called  Mark,  nephew  to  Barnabas,  wrote  the  Gos- 
pel which  goes  by  his  name  ;  and  was  also  the 
disciple  Df  Peter." 

Theophylact  informs  us,  ^'' That  the  Gospel 
according  to  Mark,  was  written  at  Rome,ten  years 
after  the  ascension  of  Jesus  Christ,  at  the  request 
of  the  believers  there;  for,  this  Mark  was  a  disciple 
of  Peter.  His  name  was  John,  and  he  was  nephew 
to  Barnabas,  the  companion  of  Paul." 

EuTHYMius  concurs  exactly  in  this  testimony. 
His  words  are,  "The  Gospel  of  Mark  was  writ- 
ten about  ten  years  after  our  Lord's  ascension,  at 
the  request  of  the  believers  at  Rome  ;  or  as  some 
say,  in  Egypt  ; — that  Mark  was,  at  first,  much 
with  his  uncle  Barnabas,  and  Paul,  but  afterwards 
went  with  Peter  to  Rome,  from  whom  he  received 
the  whole  history  of  his  Gospel." 

NicEPHORUs  says,  "  Only  two  of  the  Twelve 
have  left  memoirs  of  our  Lord's  life,  and  two  of 
the  Seventy,  Mark  and  Luke."   And  a  little  after- 


193 

**Mark  and  Luke  puhlishcd  their  Gospels,  by 
the  direction  of  Peter  and  Paul." 

EuxrcHius,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  has  the 
following  words,  *'  In  the  time  of  Nero,  Peter  the 
prince  of  the  apostles,  making  use  of  Mark,  wrote 
a  Gospel  at  Rome,  in  the  Roman  languasje. " 

The  reader  will  recollect,  that  this  last  writer 
lived  as  late  as  tlie  tenth  century,  which  will  ac" 
count  for  his  callino;  Peter  the  prince  of  the  apos- 
tles, a  language  entirely  foreign  to  the  early  Eccle- 
siastical writers.  And  Selden  is  of  opinion,  that 
l)y  the  Roman  language,  he  meant  the  Greek, 
which  was  then  in  common  use,  at  Rome  ;  and  it 
is  well  known,  that  in  our  times,  the  modern 
Greek  language,  is  called,  Uomaic.  Jones  and 
Lardner  concur  in  the  opinion  of  Selden. 


ji  a. 


SEOTIOZr     VT, 


GOSPEL  OF  LURE— TESTIMONIES  OF    THE    FATHERS 
RESPECTING  IT. 

The  Third  Gospel  is  that  of  Luke,  He  is  men- 
tioned in  Scripture,  as  the  companion  of  Paul,  in 
his  travels  :  and  when  that  apostle  was  sent  a  pri- 
soner to  Rome,  this  evangelist  accompanied  hinr, 
and  continued  wi>h  him  daring  his  two  year's  con- 
finement in  th;it  city,  as  may  be  gathered  from 
Paul's  Epistles,  written  durmg  this  period.  Whe- 
ther he  was  the  same  as  The  beloved  jihysicianj 
mentioned  by  Paul,  is  uncertain,  but  the  general 
opinion  is  in  favour  of  it.  It  is  also  ciisputed,  whe- 
ther or  not  he  was  one  of  the  Seventy  disciples. 
Without  undertaking  to  decide  these  points,  1  will 
proceed  to  lay  before  the  reader,  the  principal  test  i- 
motjies  of  the  Fathers,  respecting  this  gospel  and 
its  author. 

Iren^us  asserts,  *'  That  Luke  the  companion  of 
Paul,  put  down  in  a  booky  the  gospel  preached  by 
him."  A;r;nn,  he  says,  "  iiUke  was  not  only  a 
companion,  but  a  fellow  labourer  of  the  apbstles,  es- 
pecially oi  Paul  "  He  calls  Ijim,  "  A  disciple  and 
fellow  labourer  of  the  apostles."  "  The  apostles," 
Says  he,  *'  envying  none^  plainly  delivered  to  ail, 


195 

the  things  whirh  they  had  heard  from  the  Lord. 
So  lik»;\vi.sc  Luke  envyine;  no  man,  has  delivert'd  to 
us  wliat  he  learned  from  them,  as  he  says,  Even  as 
they  delivered  t hem  unto  us,  who  from  the  begin- 
ning ivere  eye-witnesses,  and  ministers  of  his 
■loord." 

EusEBius  informs  us,  that  Clement  of  Alexandria 
bore  a  large  testimony  tb  this,  as  w(  11  as  to  the 
other  gospels  ;  s^nd  he  mentions  a  tradition  con- 
cerning the  order  of  the  j^ospels,  which  Clement 
had  received  from  presbyters  of  more  ancient 
times,  "  That  the  gospels  containing  the  genealo- 
gies, were  written  first." 

Teutullia>  speaks  of  Matthew  and  John  as  dis- 
ciples of  Christ  ;  of  Mark  and  Luke  as  disciples  of 
the  apostles  ;  however,  he  ascribes  the  same  author- 
ity to  the  gospels  written  by  them,  as  to  thp  others. 
"The  gospel,"  says  he,  '«  which  Mark  published, 
may  l)e  said  to  be  Peter's,  whose  interpreter  Mark 
was;  and  Luke's  digest,  is  often  ascribed  to  Paul. 
And  indeed  it  is  easy  to  take  that  for  the  Master'? 
which  the  disciples  publishetl."  Again,  "More- 
over, Luke  was  not  au  apostle,  but  an  apostolic 
man  ;  not  a  master,  but  a  disciple  :  certainly  less 
than  his  master  ;  certainly  so  much  later,  as  he  is  a 
tbilower  of  P;iul,  the  last  o»  the  apostles." 

Obioen  mentions  the  gospels  in  the  order  com- 
monly received,  '' The  third,'' says  he,  "  is  that 
acoor'ling  to  Ltske,  the  gospel  commended  by  Paul, 
published  for  the  sake  of  the  Gentile  converts." 


196 

In  his  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
which  we  now  have  in  a  Latin  version  only,  he 
writes,  "Some say  Lucius  is  Lucas  the  Evange- 
list, as  indeed  it  is  not  uncommon  to  write  names, 
sometimes  accord inji;  to  the  original  form  ;  some- 
times, according  to  the  Greek,  and  Roman  termina- 
tion." 

EusEBiirs  has  left  us  the  following  testimony,  con- 
cerninji  Luke  the  evangelist,  ''  And  Luke  who  was 
ef  Antioch,  and  by  profession  a  physician,  for  the 
most  part  a  companion  of  Paul,  who  had,  likewise, 
more  than  a  slight  acquaintance  withtheother  apos- 
tles, has  left  us,  in  two  books,  divinely  inspired,  ev- 
idences of  the  art  of  healing  souls,  which  he  had 
learned  from  them.  One  of  them,  is,  the  gospel  which 
he  professeth  to  have  written,  as  they  delivered  it  to 
him,  wlio,  from  the  beginning,  were  eye-witnesses 
and  ministers  <if  his  word."  With  all  whom,  he 
says,  he  had  been  perfectly  acquainted,  from  the 
first.  And  in  another  place,  he  says,  "  Luke  hath 
delivered,  in  his  gospel,  a  certain  account  of  such 
things  as  he  had  been  assured  of  by  his  intimate 
acquaintance  and  familiarity  with  Paul,  and  his 
conversation  withtheother  apostles." 

In  the  synopsis,  ascribed  to  Athanasius,  it  is 
said,  "  That  the  gospel  of  Luke  was  dictated  by 
the  apostle  Paul,  and  written  and  published  by  the 
blessed  apostle  and  physit'ian  Luke." 

Gkegory  Nazianzen  says,  "  That  Luke  wrote 
for  the  Greeks  ;"  and  Gregory  Nyssen,  *'  That 


197 

Luke  was  as  imicli  a  physician  for  the  soul  as  the 
body." 

The  testimony  of  Jerome,  concerning  Luke,  is 
as  follows  :  "  Luke,  who  was  of  Antioch,  and  by 
profession  a  physician,  not  unskilful  in  the  Greek 
lansjuaoje,  a  disciple  of  the  aposile  Paul,  and  the 
constant  companion  of  his  travels,  wrote  a  gospel, 
and  another  excellent  volume  entitled,  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  ....  It  is  supposed  that  Luke  did 
not  learn  his  gospel  from  the  apostle  Paul  only, 
who  had  not  conversed  with  the  Lord  in  the  flesh, 
but  also  from  other  apostles,  which  likewise  he 
owns,  at  the  beginning  of  his  volume,  sa)'ing,  Eve7i 
as  they  delivered  them  unto  t/.y,  loho  from  the  be- 
ginning were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the 
word.  Therefore,  he  wrote  the  gospel  from  the  in- 
formation of  others;  but  the  Acts  he  composed 
from  his  own  knowledge.* 

The  same  writer,  in  the  preface  to  his  commen- 
tary on  St.  Matthew,  says,  "'I'he  third  evangt  list 
is  Luke,  the  physician,  a  Syrian  of  Antioch,  who 
WTisa  disciple  of  the  apostle  Paul,  and  published 
his  gospel  in  the  countries  of  Acliaia  and  Boe- 
otia." 

In  another  place,  he  observes,  *<That  some  said 
that  Luke  had  bem  a  proselyte  to  Judaism,  before 
his  conversion  to  Christianity." 

Chrysostom,  in  his  first  homily  on  the  gospel  of 

*  Book  of  Illustrioas  Men 


198 

Matthew,  has  this  remark  :  ''Luke had  the  fluency 
of  Pa'il,  Mark  the  conciseness  of  Peter,  both  learn- 
ing 6f  their  masters."  'nomijr 

Isidore  of  Seville  says,  "  Of  the  four  evangelists, 
the  first  and  last  relate  what  they  had  heard  Christ 
say,  or  had  seen  him  perform  Matthew  wrote  his 
gospel  first,  in  Judea ;  then  Mark  in  Italy  ;  Luke, 
the  third,  in  Achaia  :  John,  the  last,  in  Asia." 
And  again,  of  all  the  evangelists,  Luke,  ihe  third  in 
order,  is  reckoned  to  have  been  the  must  skilful  in 
the  Greek  tongue.  For  he  was  a  physician,  and 
wrote  his  gospel  in  Greek.       -i^tHa  mo{\ 

InTHEOPHYLAcx's  preface  to  St.  Matthew's  Gos- 
pel, it  is  said,"  There  are  four  Evangelists,  two  of 
which,  Matthew  and  John,  were  of  the  apostles  ; 
the  other  two,  Mark  and  Luke,  were  of  the  num- 
ber of  the  Seventy.  Mark  was  a  disciple  and  com- 
panion of  Peter,  Luke  of  Paul  ....  Luke  wrote 
fifteen  years  after  Christ's  ascension." 

In  his  commentary  on  Luke,  he  observes,  "  That 
it  appears  from  Luke's  Introduction,  that  he  was 
not  from  the  beginning  a  disciple,  but  only  after- 
wards. For  others  were  disciples  from  the  begin- 
ning, as  Peter,  and  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  who  de- 
livered to  him  the  things  whieh  they  had  seen  or 
heard." 

EuTHYMius  says,  "Luke  was  a  native  of  Antioch, 
and  a  physician.  He  was  a  hearer  of  Christ,  and 
as  some  say,  one  of  his  Seventy  disciples,  as  well  as 
Mark.    He  was  afterwards  very  intimate  with  Paul 


iy9 

He  wrote  his  Gosppl,  with  Paul's  permission,  iii- 
teen  years  after  our  Lord's  ascension." 

EuTYCHius,  patrinrch  of  Constantinople,  has  hand- 
ed down  the  following  account  :  "  In  the  time  of 
the  same  empcMor  (Nero)  Luke  wrote  liis  sjospel 
in  Greek,  to  a  notahio  and  wise  man  (if  the  Ro- 
mans, whose  name  was  Theophilus  ;  to  whom  also 
he  wrote  the  Acts,  or  the  history  of  the  d'sciples. 
The  evangelist  Luke,  was  a  com|)anion  of  the  apos- 
tle Paul,  going  with  him,  wherever  he  went.  For 
which  reason,  the  apostle  Paul,  in  one  of  his  epis- 
tles, says,  Luke  the  physician  salutes  ynu.'''' 

The  same  arguments  by  which  the  Canonical  au- 
thority of  the  gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark  were 
established,  apply  with  their  full  force  to  the  gos- 
pel of  Luke.  It  was  universally  received  as  Ca- 
nonical by  the  whole  primitive  church  ;  has  a  place, 
in  every  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  was  ever  published  ;  is  constantly  re- 
ferred to  and  cited  by  the  Fathers,  as  a  part  of  Sa- 
cred Scripture  ;  and  was  one  of  the  books  con- 
stantly read  in  the  churches,  as  a  part  of  the  rule  of 
faith  and  practice  for  all  believers. 

Marcion,  the  heretic,  it  is  true,  had  a  gospel 
according  to  Luke,  which  differed  essentiallv  from 
that  in  the  Canon,  but  his  authority  has  no  weight. 


SECTION-      VII. 

—»»©©»•«-- 

THE  OBJECTIONS  OF  J.  D.  MICH \ELIS,  TO  THE  CAN- 
ONICAL AUTHORITY  OF  THE  GOSPELS  OF  MARK 
AND  LUKE,  CONSIDERED,  AND  ANSWERED. 

J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament,  as  translated  from  the  German,  by 
Bishop  Marsh,  in  the  Third  Soction'of  the  Third 
Chapter,  speaking  of  the  gospels  of  St.  Mark  and 
St  Luke,  and  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  of 
the  2;rounds  of  placing  them  in  the  Canon,  says, 
"I  must  confess  that  I  am  unable  to  find  a  satis- 
factory proof  of  their  inspiration,  and  the  more  I 
investigate  the  subject,  and  the  oftener  I  compare 
their  writings  with  those  of  St.  Matthew,  and  St. 
John,  the  greater  are  my  doubts."  He  then  goes 
on  to  say,  that  in  a  former  edition  of  this  work,  he 
had  stated  the  arguments  on  both  sides  of  the 
question,  but  although  uncertain  which  he  should 
prefer,  yet  he  had  rather  inclined  to  the  affirmative. 
But  now,  he  tells  us,  that  he  is  strongly  inclined  to 
the  negative. 

The  first  argument  for  the  inspiration  of  these 
gospels,  which  the  learned  professor  considers,  is  de- 
rived from  the  fact,  that  Mark  and  Luke  were  com- 
panions and   assistants  of  the  apostles.     This,  he 


201 

can  aftord  no  proof  of  their  inspiration,  even  if  ir 
could  be  shown  tliat  they  were  enrlovvcd  uiih  the 
extraordinary  o;ifts  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost,  of  which, 
liov'ovcr,  there  is  no  historical  proof.  Because  a 
disciple  might  possess  these  e;ifts,  and  yet  his  Wri- 
tings not  he  inspired.  And  if  we  gr-an.d  ihear- 
ginn.-nt  for  their  inspinition  on  th^  ci  aractcr  of  an 
apusile's  assistant,  then  we  must  rt.'reive  as  Cawon- 
ical  the  genuine  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome,  and 
Iho  writings  of  other  apost'djcul  Fathers. 

The  next  argument  which  he  cons:iders,  is,  that 
the  apostles  themselves  have  recommended  these 
gosj.H'ls  lis  Canonical,  in  their  f^pistlcs.  That  the 
passigps  depended  on  for  proof  do  refer  to  these  or 
any  other  writtet)  gospels,  the  professor  denies  : 
hut  even  if  they  did,  he  considers  the  evidence  un- 
satisfactory ;  for  he  supposes  that  thty  mighr  have 
commendida  hook  as  containing  gtnuine  historical 
accounts,  without  vouching  for  its  inspiration. 

The  tfsiiuioiiy  of  the  Fathers,  that  th'-se  go>;pels 
Aver^'  approved  by  Peter  and  Paul,  respectively  ; 
and,  with  Matthew's  gos|)el  were  shown  to  the 
apostle  Jnhn,  the  It-arned  professor  sets  aside  with 
vtTy  little  ceremony. 

And  finally,  he  demurs,  in  regard  to  the  evi- 
dence of  the  Canonical  authority  of  these  books,  de- 
rived from  the  testimony  of  th»^  whole  primitive 
church,  by  which  tluy  were  undoubtedly  received 
into  the  Canon  ;  and  suggests  that  the  apos'le?^ 
might  have  recommended  them,  and  the  primitive 

9 


202 

church  have  accepted  them,  as  works  indispensa- 
ble to  a  Christian,  on  account  of  the  iriipurtance  of 
their  contents,  and  that  by  insensible  dt  grees  they 
acquired  the  character  of  being;  inspired. 

On  these  reasonings  and  objections,  against  the 
inspiration  and  Canoni(  al  authority  of  several  im- 
portant books,  which  havf  hitiicito  held  an  unques- 
tioned place,  in  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament, 
anti  coming  from  the  pen  of  a  man  too,  of  .-uch  ex- 
tensive Biblical  learning,  I  think  it  necessary  to  de- 
tain the  reader  with  some  remarks,  which  I  hope 
will  have  the  t  fleet  uf  counteracting  the  peria^ious 
influence  of  the  opinions,  which  have  been  exhioit- 
ed  above. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  then,  I  would  observe,  that 
it  will  be  admitted,  that  Mark  and  Luke  were 
humble,  pious  men;  als'i,  that  they  were  intelligent, 
well-informei]  men,  and  must  have  known  that  the 
committing  to  writing  the  facts  and  doctrines  com- 
prehended in  the  gospel,  was  not  left  to  the  discre- 
tion or  caprice  of  every  disciple,  but  became  the 
duty  of  those  only,  who  were  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  undertake  the  w^irk.  Now,  if  these  two 
disciples  had  been  uninspired,  or  not  under  the 
immediate  direction  of  apostles  who  possessed  ple- 
nary inspiration,  it  would  have  argued  great  pre- 
sumption in  them,  without  any  direction,  to  write 
gospels  for  the  instruction  of  the  church.  The  ve- 
ry fact  of  tlieir  writing  is,  ttierefore,  a  strong  evi- 
dence, that  they  believed  themselves  to  be  inspired. 


1203 

There  is  tlien  little  force  in  tlte  remark  of  the  learn- 
ed professor,  that  neither  St.  Mark  nor  St  Luke 
have  declared,  in  any  part  of  their  wrltins^s,  that 
they  were  inspired  :  fbr  such  a  declaration  was  un" 
necessary  ;  their  conduct  in  undertikine;  to  write 
such  books,  is  the  best  evidence  that  they  believed 
themselves  callc(^  to  this  work. 

And  the  objection  to  this  argument,  from  the  wri- 
tings of  other  apostolical  men,  is  not  valid  ;  for  none 
of  them  ever  undertook  to  write  Gospels,  for  the 
use  of  the  church.  All  attempts  at  writing  ot- er 
Gospels,  than  the  four,  were  considered  by  the 
primitive  church,  as  impious;  because,  the  writers 
were  uninspired  men. 

2.   But  the  universal  reception  of  these  books  by 
the  whole  primitive  church,  as  canonical,  and  that, 
while  some  of  the  apostles  were  living,  is  the  evi- 
dence   which  to  my  mind  is  conclusivci  that  they 
were  not  mere  human  j)roductions,  but  composed 
by  divine  inspiration.     That  they  were  thus  uni- 
versally received,  I  think  is  manifest,  from   th 
testimonies    which    have    already   been    adduced. 
There  is  not  in  all  the  writings  of  antiquity,  a  hint, 
that  any  Christian  belonging  to  the  church,   ever 
suspected   that  these  Gospels  were  inferior  in   au- 
thority to  the  others.     No  books  in  the  Canon  ap- 
pear to  have  been  received  with  more  universal  con- 
sent,  and  to  have  been  1«"Sr  disputed.     They  arc 
contained  in  every  cainlogue,  w'lich  has  come  down 
to  us.    They  are  cited  a?  Scripture,  by  all  that  men- 


204 

tion  them  ;  and  are  expressly  declared  by  the  Fa- 
th'  rs,  to  be  Canonical  and  inspired  hooks.  Now, 
let  it  be  remembered,  that  this  is  the  best  evidence 
which  we  can  have  that  any  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  were  written  by  inspiration.  I 
kn"w.  indeed,  thatMichaelisplace&ihe  whole  proof 
of  inspiraiion  on  the  promise  made  by  Christ  to  his 
aposlle^  ;  b'i'  while  it  is  admitted  that  this  is  a 
weighty  consideration,  it  does  not  appear  to  us  to 
be  f^qua!  in  force  lo  the  testimony  of  the  Universal 
Church,  incluHina;  the  apostles  themselves,  that 
these  writings  were  penned  under  the  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  ;  for  it  is  not  perfectly  clear,  that 
the  promise  referred  to  was  confined  to  the  twelve. 
Certainly,  Paul,  who  was  not  of  that  number,  was 
inspired  in  a  plenary  manner,  and  much  the  larger 
part  of  the  twelve  never  wrote  any  thing  for  the 
Canon.  There  is  nothing  in  the  New  Testament 
wliich  forbids  our  supposing,  that  other  disciples 
might  have  b"en  selected  to  write  for  the  use  of 
the  church.  We  do  not  wish  that  this  should  be 
believed,  in  regard  to  any  persons,  without  evi- 
dence, but  we  think  that  the  proof  exists,  and  ari- 
ses from  the  undeniable  fact,  that  the  writings  of 
these  two  men  were,  frmn  the  beginning,  received 
as  inspired.  And  this  belief  must  have  prevailed 
before  the  death  of  the  apostles  ;  for  all  the  testi- 
monies concur  in  stating,  that  the  gospel  of  Mark 
was  seen  by  Peter,  and  that  of  Luke  by  Paul,  and 
approved  by  them  respectively.     Now  is  it  credi- 


xJ05 

ble  that  those  apo«5tlt^s,  and  John  who  survived 
them  many  years,  would  have  recommended  to  the 
Christiao  churfh,  th"  productions  of  uninspired 
men  ?  No  doubt,  all  the  churches,  at  that  time, 
looked  up  to  thf  apostles  fDr  sjuidance,  in  all  mat- 
ters that  related  to  the  rule  <»f  their  faith,  and  a 
g'  nerai  opinion  that  these  jjospels  were  CannnicaJ, 
ctiuld  not  have  obtained,  without  their  concurrence. 
The  hypothesis  of  Michaclis,  that  they  were  rc- 
eommen  led  as  useful  human  productions,  and  by 
deojrees  came  to  be  considen^d  as  inspired  writings, 
is  in  itself  improbable,  and  repugnant  to  all  the  tes- 
timony which  has  come  down  to  us  on  the  subjectr 
If  this  had  been  the  fact,  they  would  never  have 
been  placed  among  the  books,  universally  acknow- 
ledgerl,  hut  would  have  been  doubted  of,  or  dispu- 
ted by  some.  The  difference  made  between  inspi- 
red books,  and  others,  in  those  primitive  times, 
was  as  great  as  at  any  subsequent  period  ;  and  the 
line  of  distinction  was  not  only  broad,  but  great 
pains  were  taken  to  have  it  drawn  accurately  ;  and 
when  the  common  opinion  of  the  church,  respect- 
ing the  gosjiels,  was  formed,  there  was  no  difficulty 
in  coming  to  the  certain  knowledge  of  the  truth. 
For  thirty  years  and  more,  before  the  death  of  the 
aposth'  John,  these  two  gospels  were  in  circulation. 
If  any  doubt  had  existed  respecting  their  Canoni- 
cal authority,  would  not  the  churches  and  their 
Elders  have  had  recourse  to  this  infallible  autho- 
rity ?     The  general  agrt  ement  of  all  Christians, 

62 


20t> 

over  the  whole  world,  respecting  most  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  doubtless,  should  be  at- 
tributed to  the  authority  of  the  apostles.  If,  then, 
these  Gospels  had  been  mere  human  productions, 
they  mio;ht  have  been  read  privately,  but  never 
could  have  found  a  place  in  the  Sacred  Canon. 
The  objection  to  these  books  comes  entirely  too 
late  to  be  entitled  to  any  weight.  The  opinion  of 
a  modern  critic,  however  learned,  is  of  small  con- 
sideration, when  opposed  to  the  testimony  of  the 
whole  primitive  church ;  and  to  the  suffrage  of 
the  universal  church,  in  every  age,  since  the  days 
of  the  apostles.  The  rule  of  the  learned  Huet, 
already  cited,;  is  sound,  viz.  "  That  all  those  books 
should  be  deemed  Canonical  and  inspired,  which 
were  received  as  such,  by  those  who  lived  nearest 
to  the  time   when  they  were  published." 

8.  But  if  we  should,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
concede,  that  no  books  should  be  considered  as 
inspired,  but  such  as  were  the  productions  of  apos- 
tles, still  these  gospels  would  not  be  excluded  from 
the  Canon.  It  is  a  fact,  in  which  there  is  a  won- 
derful agreement  among  the  Fathers,  that  Mark 
wrote  his  gospel  from  the  mouth  of  Peter;  that 
is,  he  wrote  dovvn  what  he  had  heard  this  apostle 
every  day  declaring,  in  his  public  ministry.  And 
Luke  did  the  same,  in  regard  to  Paul's  preaching. 
These  gospels  therefore,  may,  according  to  this 
testimony,  be  considered,  as  more  prabably  be- 
longing to  these  two  apostles,  than  to  the  Evange- 


207 

lists  who  pcnncfl  tlicm.  They  were  little  more, 
it  would  scf-m,  if  we  give  full  credit  to  the  testi- 
mony which  has  been  exhibited,  than  amanuenses 
to  the  apostles,  on  whom  they  attended.  Paul, 
we  know,  dictated  several  of  his  Pipistles  to  some 
of  his  companions  ;  and  if  Mark  and  Luke  heard 
the  gospel  from  Peter  and  Paul,  so  often  repeated, 
that  they  were  perfect  masters  of  their  respective 
nan-atives,  and  then  committed  the  same  to  wri- 
ting, are  they  not,  virtually,  the  productions  of 
these  apostles  which  have  been  handed  down  to 
us  ?  And  this  was  so  much  the  opinion  of  some  o£ 
the  Fathers,  that  they  speak  of  Mark's  gospel,  as 
Peter's,  and  bf  Luke's,  as  Paul's. 

Bui  this  is  not  all.  These  gospels  were  shown: 
to  these  apostles,  and  received  their  approbation. 
Thus  speak  the  ancients,  as  with  one  voice,  and  if 
they  had  been  silent,  we  might  be  certain,  from 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  that  these  Evange- 
lists would  never  have  ventured  to  take  such  an 
important  step,  as  to  write  and  publish  the  preach- 
ing of  these  inspired  men,  without  their  express 
approbation.  Now,  let  it  be  considered,  that  a. 
narrative  prepared  by  a  man  well  acquainted 
with  the  facts  related,  may  be  entirely  correct 
without  inspiration  ;  but  of  this  we  cannot  be  sure, 
and  therefore,  it  is  of  great  importance  to  have  a 
his'ory  of  facts  from  men,  who  were  rendered  in- 
fallible by  the  inspiration  of  t lie  Moly  Spirit.  It. 
should  be   remembered,    however,  that  the   only 


2  OS 

advantae;e  of  inspiration  ir  jrivina;  such  a  narrative, 
coiisjsts  in  thf  proper  selncfioti  of  facts  and  cir- 
cumstances, and  in  the  infallible  certainty  of  the 
writing.  Suppose,  then,  that  an  uninspired  man 
shi'uld  prepare  an  account  of  such  transactions  as 
he  had  seen,  or  heard  from  eve-witnesses,  of  un- 
doubied  veracity,  and  that  his  narrative  should  be 
submitted  to  the  inspection  of  an  apostle,  and  re- 
ceive his  full  approbation  ;  might  not  such  a  book 
be  considered  as  ins[)lred  ?  If  in  the  origioal 
composition,  there  should  have  crept  in  some  er- 
rors, (for  to  err  is  human)  the  inspired  reviewer 
would,  of  course,  point  them  out  and  have  ihem 
corrected  ;  now  such  a  book  would  be,  for  all  im- 
portant purposes,  an  inspired  volume  ;  and  would 
deserve  a  place  in  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture. 
If  any  credit,  th»n,  is  due  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Christian  Fathers,  the  gospels  of  JNIark  and  Luke, 
are  Canonical  books  ;  for,  as  was  before  stated, 
there  is  a  general  concurrence  among  them,  that 
these  Evangelists  submitted  their  wiirks  to  the  in- 
spection, and  received  the  approbation,  of  the 
apostles  Peter  and  Paul. 

4.  Fmally,  the  internal  evidence  is  as  strong  in 
favour  of  the  gospels  under  consideration,  as  of  any- 
other  book-^  of  the  New  Testament.  There  is  no 
reason  to  think  that  Mark  or  Luke  were  capable 
of  writing  with  such  perfect  simplicity  and  pr 'prie- 
ty,  without  the  aid  of  inspiration,  or  the  assi^innce 
of  inspired  men.     If  we  reject  these  books  irom 


;ioy 


the  Canon,  \vc  niu-st  a;ive  up  tlie  argument  derived 
from  internal  evidence  for  the  inspiration  of  the 
Sacreil  S('ri|)turc.s,  altogether.  It  is  true,  tiic  learn- 
ed professor,  whose  opinions  we  are  opposing,  has 
said,  "The  oftener  I  compare  their  writings 
(Mark's  and  Luke's)  with  those  of  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  John,  the  greater  are  my  doubts."  And 
speaking  in  another  place  of  Mark  he  says,  "In 
some  immaterial  instances  he  seems  to  have  erred  ,'* 
and  gives  it  as  his  opinion,  "  That  they  who  un- 
dertake to  reconcile  St.  Mark  wit li  St  Matthew,  or 
to  show  that  he  is  nowhere  corrected  by  St.  John, 
experience  great  difficulty,  and  have  not  seldom  to 
resort  to  ininatural  explanations."  But  the  learned 
professor  has  not  mentioned  any  particular  cases  of 
irreconciloable  discrepancies  between  this  evange- 
ist  and  St.  Mattln;w  ;  nor  does  he  indicate  in  what 
statements  he  is  corrected  by  St.  John.  Until 
something  of  this  kind  is  exhibited,  general  re- 
marks of  tiiis  sort  are  deserving  of  no  considera- 
tion. To  harmonize  the  evangelists  has  always 
been  found  a  difficidt  task,  but  this  docs  not  prove 
that  they  contradict  each  other,  or  that  their  ac- 
counts are  irreconcilable.  Many  things,  which,  at 
first  sight,  appear  contradictory,  arc  found,  upon 
closer  examination,  to  be  perfectly  harmonious  ; 
and  if  there  be  some  things,  which  commentators 
have  been  unable  satisfactorily  to  reconcil'*,  it  is  no 
more  than  what  mighi  be  expected, in  narratives  so 
concise,  and  in  which,  a  strict  regard  to  chronolo- 


210 

gical  order,  did  not  enter  into  the  plan  of  the  wri- 
ters. And  if  this  objection  be  permitted  to  influence 
our  judgment,  in  this  case,  it  will  operate  against 
the  inspiration  of  the  other  evangelists  as  well  as 
Mark  ;  but  in  our  apprehension,  when  the  discre- 
pancies are  impartially  considered,  and  all  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  facts  candidly  and  accurately 
weighed,  there  will  be  found  no  solid  ground  of  ob- 
jection to  the  inspiration  of  any  of  the  gospels  ; — 
certainly  nothing,  which  can  counterbalance  the 
strong  evidence  arising  from  the  style  ai>d  spirit 
of  the  writers.  In  what  respects  these  twoEvang> 
lists  fall  short  of  the  others,  has  never  been  shown; 
upon  the  most  thcjrough  exammation  and  fair  compa- 
rison of  these  inimitable  productions, they  appear  to 
be  all  indited  b}'  the  same  spirit,  and  to  possess  the 
same  superiority  to  all  human  compositions. 

Compare  these  gospels  with  those  which  are  ac- 
knowledged to  have  been  written  by  uninspired 
men,  and  you  will  need  no  nice  power  of  discri- 
mination to  see  the  difference  :  the  first  appear  in 
every  respect  worthy  of  God  ;  the  last  betray,  in 
every  page,  the  weakness  of  man. 

I  beg  leave,  here,  to  use  the  words  of  an  excel- 
lent writer,  in  a  late  work  :  "  The  gospel  of  St. 
Luke  was  always  from  the  very  moment  of  its  pub- 
lication, received  as  inspired  as  well  as  authentic. 
It  was  published  durmg  the  lives  of  St.  John,  St. 
Peter,  and  St.  Paul,  and  was  approved  and  sanc- 
tioned by  them  as  inspired  ;  and  received  as  such 


211 

by  the  clnn'chps,in  conformity  to  thoJewi'^hCnnon, 
which  tic'ci  I.mI  on  Uie  geiiuiiier.jbS  c*  >;  ".rioni-ntss 
of  ihi  ins|;ired  books  ul  theii"  own  church,  by  re- 
ceiviiii;-  h  ni  as  a  prophet,  who  was  ackou'lfcigctl  as 
sii.  ii  by  the  tistiniony  of  an  eslablishtd  prophet. 
On  tiie  same  grounds  Lnkeniust  be  considered  as  a 
true  Kvan<;elist:  his  gospel  bei.  g  dictaled  and  ap- 
pr  v<:d  by  ai  aposile,  of  whose  authority  there  can 
be-  iio  qucsiii)n.  'I'hen;  is  lik>vvise  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  warrant  the  conclusions  of  Whitby — that 
both  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  were  of  tlie  number 
of  the  s<:veniy,  who  had  a  commission  from  li.-ist 
to  preach  llie  gospel  not  to  the  Jews  only,  bul  to 
the  other  nations — That  the  Holy  Ghost  foil  on 
those  among  the  numbers  of  the  seventy,  who 
formed  a  part  of  the  hundred  and  twenty,  assembled 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  from  that  time  thev 
were  guided  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  writing  or  preaching  the  gospel.  And  if  the 
Uuiversal  Cluirrh,  from  the  tirsi  ages,  received 
this  gospel  as  divinely  inspired,  on  these  satisftcto- 
ry  grounds,  distance  of  time  cannot  weaken  the 
evidences  of  truth,  and  we  are  recpnred  to  receive 
it  on  the  same  testimoii}-.  That  wliich  satisfied 
those  who  iiad  much  better  means  of  judging, 
should  certainly  satisty  us,  at  this  time."* 

There  is  sometiiing  reprehensible,    not  to   say 

*  New  Testament,  by  the  Rev.  George  Townsend.  Vol- 
1.  p.  5. 


212 

impioiis,in  that  bold  spirit  of  modern  criticism,whicU 
has  \t'd  m:my  eminent  Biblical  schi-lars,  especi  ily 
in  (lermany,  first  to  attack  the  authority  of  parti- 
cular bioks  of  Scti[  ture,  and  next  to  call  in  ques- 
tion ihe  inspiration  of  the  whole  volume.  To 
what  extent  this  licentiousness  of  criticism  has 
been  carried,  I  need  not  say  ^  for  it  is  a  matter  of 
noiorietv,  thit  of  late,  the  most  dangerous  enemies 
of  the  FUbie,  have  been  found  occupying  the  places 
of  its  afiv  icaies;  and  the  critical  art,  w!  ich  was  in- 
tended for  the  correction  of  the  text,  and  the  in- 
terpretation (if  the  Sacred  books,  hiS,  in  a  most 
unnatural  way,  been  turned  agamst  the  ;  iblf;  and 
finally,  the  insjiiration  of  ail  the  sacred  hooks, 
has  not  only  been  questioned,  but  scornfully  re- 
jected, bi/  Fro/essnrs  of  Theology  !  And  these 
meo,  wliile  living  on  endowments  which  pious 
benevolrnce  had  consecrated  for  the  support  of  re- 
ligion, and  openly  connected  with  churches  whose 
creeds  contain  orthodox  opinions,  have  so  far  for- 
gotten their  higli  rpsponsibilities,and  neglected  the 
claims  which  the  church  had  on  them,  as  to  exert 
all  their  ingenuity  and  learning,  to  sap  the  foun- 
dation of  that  system,  which  they  were  sworn  to 
def  nd.  They  have  had  the  shameless  haniihood. 
to  ■^end  forth  into  the  world,  books  under  their 
own  names,  w'.ich  contain  fully  as  much  of  the 
poi'^on  of  infidelity,  as  ever  di.Ntilled  from  the  pens 
of  the  most  malignant  deists,  whose  writings  have 
fallen,  as  a  curse  upon  the  World.     The  only  effec- 


313 

tual  security  which  we  have  agjainst  this  new  and 
most  danojerous  form  of  inftclclity,  is  found  in  the 
spirit  of  the  age,  which  is  so  superticiai  and  curso- 
ry in  its  reading,  that  however  many  elaborate 
criliical  works  may  be  published  in  foreign  langua- 
ges, very  few  of  them  will  be  read,  even  by  Theo- 
logical students,  in  this  country. 

May  God  overrule  the  efforts  of  these  enemies 
of  Christ  and  the  Bible,  so  that  good  may  come 
out  of  evil  ! 


fv 


SECTIOir    VIZI. 

THE  GOSPEL  OP  ioHlV— LIFE  OF  THIS  EVANGELIST- 
OCCASION  AND  TIME  OF  HIS  WRITING— CAN ONI» 
CAL    AUTHOIilTY,    INDISPUTABLE. 

The  Fourth  gospel  was  written  by  John,  the  soo 
of  Zebedee  and  Salome,   who  was  originally  a  fish- 
erman of  Galilee,  and  brother  of  James;  and  we 
may  suppose,    was  the  younger  of  the  brothers,  as 
he  is  generally   mentioned   last,  and   is  commonly 
reported  to  have   been  the  youngest  of  all  Christ's 
disciples.     They  were  plain,    uneducated  men,  as 
their   occupation  sufficiently    indicates.      Probably 
they  had  been   disciples   of  Jolm  the  Baptist,  and 
some  have  conjectured   that   John  the   Evangelist 
was  one  of  the  two,  to   whom    John  the  Baptist 
pointed  out  Jesus,    and  who   went  after  him  to  his 
lodging.       The   other  we   know  was  Andrew,  Si- 
mon Peter's  brother  ;  and  John,  in  other  cases,  has 
concealed    his    own     name,    where     any   thing  is 
mentioned,    which  could  be  interpreted  to  his  ho- 
nour. 

Why  these  two  brothers  were  surnamed  Boaner- 
ges, by  the  Lord,  does  not  clearly  appear,  unless 
we  suppose  that  the  names  were  prophetic  of  the 
manner  of  their  preaching,  when  commissioned  as 
apostles.      But  there  are  no   facts  recorded,  from 


215 

which  any  inference  can  be  drawn,  in  relation  to 
this  subject.  Jhhn  has  been  long  celebrated  for 
his  aflfectionate  temper  and  for  the  suavity  of  his 
manners,  which  appear  very  remarkably  in  all  his 
writinsjs  ;  but  tbere  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  na- 
turally of  a  meek  temper.  The  facts  in  the  g;ospel 
history  would  seem  to  indicate,  that  both  be  and 
his  brother  were  of  a  fiery  temper,  and  very  am- 
bitious by  nature  ;  and  some  iiave  supposed,  that 
their  surname  had  relation  to  this  ardour  of  temper, 
but  this  is  not  very  probable. 

We  know  that  John  was  the  bosom  friend  of 
•Jesus,  the  disciple  whom  he  loved  with  a  peculiar 
ajSecfion  ;  and  that  he  was  admitted  to  all  those 
soent'S  of  a  very  interesting  nature,  from  which 
most  of  the  other  disciples  were  excluded. 

It  is  also  certain,  that  he  was  present  at  the  crucl- 
iixion  ;  stood  near  the  cross  in  company  with  Mary 
the  mother  of  our  Lord  ;  and  that  he  remained 
at  the  place  until  the  body  of  Jesus,  now  dead, 
was  pierced  with  a  spear.  On  the  morning  of  the 
resurrection,  John  visited  the  sepulchre,  in  compa- 
ny with  Peter,  and  wis  present  when  Christ  made 
His  first  appearance  to  the  Eleven  ;  and  when  he 
manifested  himself  to  his  disciples,  at  the  sea  of  Ti- 
berias. 

After  Pentecost,  he  was  with  Peter  in  the  tem- 
ple, when  the  lame  man  was  healed  ;  accompanied 
Peter  also  to  Samaria,  and  wa.*?  present  at  the 
council  of  Jerusalem. 


216 

From  the  book  of  Revelation  we  learn,  that  thiis 
evangelist  was  for  a  time  an  exile  in  the  island  of 
Patmos,  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  where  he  was 
favoured  with  wonderful  visions  and  communica- 
tions from  the  Lord. 

It  seems  to  have  been  intimated  to  him  by  his 
Lord,  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias,  that  be  should  sur- 
vive the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  for,  when  Peter 
asked,  Lord  what  shall  this  man  do?  Jesus  saith 
iinto  hinif  if  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come, 
what  is  that  to  thee?  which  saying  gave  rise  to  an 
opinion  among  the  disciples, that, that  disciple  should 
not  die  ;  Yet  Jesus  said  not  unto  him,  he  shall 
not  die,  but  if  I  xoill,  that  he  tarry  till  I  come, 
luhat  is  that  to  thee  ?  And  this  accords  very  well 
with  the  testimonies  of  the  ancients,,  who  inform  us^ 
that  John  lived  to  a  great  age, 

iRENiEUs,  in  two  places  of  his  work  against  He- 
retics, says,  "That  John  lived  to  the  time  of  Tra- 
jan," which  will  bring  us  down  to  A.D.  98. 

EusEBius  understands  Clement  of  Alexandria 
to  say  the  same  thing. 

Origen  also  testifies,  <'  That  John  having  lived 
Jong  in  Asia,  was  buried  at  Ephesus." 

FoLTCRATES,  who  wrote  in  the  second  century, 
and  was  bishop  of  Ephesus,  asserts,  *' That  John 
was  buried  in  that  city." 

Jerome,  in  his  book  of  Illustrious  Men,  and  in 
his  work  against  Jovinian,  sa)  s,  "  That  the  apos. 
tie  John  lived  in  Asia  to  the  time  of  Trajan  5  and 


817 

dying;  at  a  sjreat  ag;e,  in  the  sixty -eighth  year  of 
our  Lord's  passion,  was  buried  near  the  city  of 
Ephesus. "  This  account  would  bringdown  the 
death  of  John  to  A.  D.  100,  in  which  year,  it  if= 
placed  by  this  writer,  in  his  Chronicon. 

The  testimonies  for  the  genuineness  of  the  gospel 
of  John,  are  as  full  and  satisfactory  as  could  be  de- 
sired. 

Irenjeus  tells  us,"  That  the  evangelist  John  de- 
signed, by  his  Gospel  to  confute  the  errors,  which 
Cerinthus  had  infused  into  the  minds  of  the  people, 
and  had  been  infused  by  those  who  were  called 
Nicolaitons  ;  and  to  convince  them,  tbat  there  was 
one  God,  who  made  all  things  by  his  Word  ;  and 
not  as  they  imagined,  one  who  was  the  Creator, 
and  another,  who  was  the  Father  of  our  Lord  ;  one, 
who  was  the  Son  of  the  Creator,  and  another  who 
was  the  Christ,  who  continued  impassible,  and  de- 
scended upon  Jesus,  the  Son  of  the  Creator." 

Jerome  fully  confirms  this  testimony  of  Irenacus, 
and  says, '^*  That  when  St.  John  was  in  Asia,  where 
there  arose  the  heresies  of  Ebion  and  Cerinthus, 
and  others,  who  denied  that  Christ  was  come  in  the 
flesh;  that  is,  denied  his  divine  nature, whom  he,  in 
his  Epistle  calls  Antichrists,  and  St.  Paul  frequent- 
ly condemns,  in  his  Epistles,  he  was  forced  by  al- 
most all  the  bishops  of  Asia,  and  the  deputations 
of  many  other  churches,  to  write  more  plainly  con- 
cerning the  divinity  of  our  Saviour,  and  to  soaraFoHt 
T   2 


sis 

in  a  discourse  on  the  word,  not  more  bold  than 
happy/' 

"  It  is  related  in  ecclesiastical  history,  that  John, 
when  solicited  by  the  brethren  to  writCyansweredy 
that  he  would  not  do  it  unless  a  public  day  of  faS't- 
ing  and  prayer  was  appointed  to  implore  God's  as- 
sistance ;  which  being  done,  and  the  solemnity  be- 
ing honoured  with  a  satisfiictory  revelation  from 
God,  he  broke  forth  into  these  words,  In  the  be- 

GIMilNG  WAS    THE  WORD,"  &C. 

Jerome  in  his  book  of  Illustrious  Men, says,  "John 
wrote  a  gospel  at  the  desire  of  the  bishops  of  Asi;i, 
against  Cerinthus,  and  other  heritics,especially  liie- 
doctrine  of  the  Ebionites,^  then  springing  up,  who 
say,  that  Christ  did  not  exist  before  the  birth  of 
Mary:  for  vvhir-h  reason  he  was  obliged  to  declare 
his  divine  nativity.  Another  reason  of  his  writing 
is  also  n-entioned,  which  is,  that  after  having  read 
the  volumes  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  he  ex- 
pressed his  appiobation  of  their  history  as  true  : 
bur  observed,  tliat  they  had  recorded  an  account  of 
but  one  year  f  our  Lord's  ministry,  even  the  last 
after  the  imprisonment  of  John,  (the  Bautist)  in 
which  ali^o  he  suffered.  Omitting  therefore  that 
year,  /"in  a  great  measure)  the  history  of  which 
had  been  written  by  the  .jther  three,  he  related 
the  Acts  of  the  preceding  time,  before  John  was 
shut  up  in  prison,  as  may  appear  to  those  who  read 
the  four  Evangelists,    which    may   serve   to  ac- 


ei9 

count,  for  the  seeming  diflerence  between  Joha 
ami  tl)e  rest" 

AirorsTiNE,  in  conformity  with  the  account  of 
Jerome,  says,  "That  this  Evang<list  wrote  con- 
cerning the  co-eternal  divinity  of  Christ  against 
heretics." 

Lampk  has  called  in  question  these  early  testi- 
monies re«if)ecting  the  occasion  of  writing  this  Gos- 
pel, and  has  attempted  to  prove  by  argument,  that 
John  had  no  view  to  any  pariicular  hereiics,  in  the 
coinnienrement  of hi>  Go^pil. 

Laroner  has  taken  the  same  side,  and  adduces 
several  argumcnis  in  favour  of  Lanipf 's  opinifm. 
TiTMAN  adopts  the  satue  opinion  But  the  probable 
reasonings  if  ingeni'  us  mm,  u  hen  opposed  ti>  such 
a  weight  of  ancit  nt  tcstimtmv,  in  relation  to  a  mat- 
ter o I  tact,  which  occnrred  at  no  lontc  distance  be- 
fore their  time,  deserve  very  little  coniiideration. 
And,  indeed,  after  reading  Lardner's  arguments,  I 
must  say,  that  ihey  appear  to  me  to  have  no  high 
degree  of  plausibility. 

Tliat  C'l  RiN  J  nrjs  lived  in  the  time  of  the  apostle 
John,  and  was  kno^n  to  him,  is  evident  from  ano- 
ther tes'intony  of  Ike'jEV:^,  which  has  been  often 
(pioted.  It  is  a  stoiy,  \\hich  he  says,  some  i^ersuns 
in  his  time  I  ad  fmm  Polycahp,  the  disciple  of 
John  ;  which, is  as  follo\»8,  *•  John  goins  lo  i  cer- 
tai'i  b  ttb  .It  Fphesus.  a  d  perceivin;i  that  Cerin- 
thus,  that  noted  arch-here>lic,    was  in  the  bath,  im- 


220 

mediately  leaped  out,  and  said,  Let  us  go  home, 
lest  the  bath  siiould  fall  down  upon  us,  having  in 
it  such  a  heretic,  as  Ceriuthus,  that  euemy  of 
truth." 

Augustine,  moreover,  asserts,  "  That  John  is 
the  last  of  the  Evaiig;eUsts. '^ 

Chrysostom  supposes,  that  John  did  not  write 
his  gospel  till  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

Paulinus  sa}'S,  ''It  had  been  handed  down  by 
tradition,  that  Jo'in  survived  all  the  other  apostits, 
and  wrote  the  last  of  the  four  Evangelists,  and  so 
as  to  C'infirm  thtir  most  certain  history."  Again, 
he  observes,  "  That  in  the  beginning  of  John's  gos- 
pel all  heretics  are  confuted. " 

CosMAs,  of  Alexandria,  informs  us,  "That  when 
John  dwelt  at  Ephesus,  there  were  deavered  lo 
him  by  the  faithful,  the  writings  of  the  other 
three  Evangelists.  Receiving  them  he  said,  that 
what  they  had  written  was  well  written  ;  but  some 
things  were  omitted  by  them,  which  were  need- 
ful to  be  related.  And  being  desired  by  the  faith- 
ful, he  also  published  his  writing,  as  a  kind  of 
supplement  to  the  rest." 

Isidore  of  Seville,  says,  **  That  John  wrote  the 
last  in  Asia." 

Theophylact  computed,  that  John  wrote 
about  two  and  thirty  years  after  Christ's  Ascen- 
sion. 

EuTHYMius,   says,   "  That  this  gospel  was  no 


221 

written  until  long  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem." 

Ntcephortts,  **  That  John  wrote  ,last  of  all, 
about  six  and  thirty  years,  after  our  Lord's  ascen- 
sion to  Heaven." 

Havingexhibited  the  testimonies  of  the  ancients* 
it  may  not  be  amiss,  to  set  down  the  opinions  of 
some  ot  the  moderns,  relative  to  the  time  when 
this  fjospel  was  written. 

Mill,  Fabricius,  LeClerc,  Jones,  and  many 
others,  aojree  that  John  wrote  his  gospel,  about  the 
year  of  our  Lord,  97. 

Wetstein  thinks  it  mischt  have  been  written 
about  thirty  two  years  after  the  ascension. 

Basnagk  and  Lampe,  are  inclined  to  believe, 
that  it  was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem. 

Whiston  and  Lardner  adopt  the  same  opin- 
ion. 

The  gospel  of  St.  John  is  cited  by  Clement  o^ 
Rome  ;  by  Uarnabas  ;  by  Ignatius  ;  by  Theo- 
PHiLus  of  Antioch  ;  by  Iken^us  ;  and  by  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  in  mote  than  forty  instances. 
And  by  all  those  writers,  who  lived  with,  or  imme- 
diately after  the  apostles,  this  gospel  is  appealed  to, 
as  inspired  Scripture  :  and  trie  saine  is  the  fact,  in 
regard  to  Orioen,  Jlrome,  Augustine,  and  all 
the  Fathers  who  came  aft*  r  this  period.  Nearly 
the  whole  of  this  gcspel  could  be  made  u[)  from  the 
citations  of  the  writers  of  the  first  four  centuries. 


123 

It  was  never  excluded  from  any  church,  or  any 
catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  therefore  possesses  every  evidence  of  being 
Canonical,  which  any  reasonable  man  could  de- 
mand. 


SBOTION"       IX. 

— ~«©e«— 

THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES— LUKE  THE  AUTFrOR 
— CVVOMCVL  AUTHOHirV  UN'DISPU  IK!)  IIY  THE 
FA  rilKRS— KEJEGIKL)  ONLY  BY    IICKETICS. 

That  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  the  writing;  of 
Luke  the  Evatig;elist,  is  manifest  from  the  dedica- 
tion to  Theophiliis,  in  which  reference  is  made  to 
his  gospel,  which  was  first  written.  And  it  is  niso 
cvi(ient,  from  the  uniform  testimony  of  all  antiqui- 
ty ;  the  fact  never  havinj;  'leen  once  questioned, 
by  any  member  of  the  catholic  ohur-h. 

But  it  is  pleasint  to  read  the  explicit  testimonies 
of  the  Fathers,  to  the  sacred  books  of  the  Nevv 
Testament  :  I  will,  therefore,  bring  forward,  the 
most  important. 

Iren^us,  repeatedly  cites  passages  from  this 
book,  saying,  <<  Luke  the  disciple  and  follower  of 
Paul,  says  thus."  "Luke  the  inseperable  com- 
panion and  fellow  labourer  of  Paul,  wrote  thus." 
He  takes  particular  notice  of  Luke's  using  the 
first  person  plural,  xve  endeavoured — we  came — we 
went — we  sat  down — toe  spoke,  &c.  And  enters 
into  some  discussion  to  pro\'e  ♦*  Luke's  fitness  for 
writing  a  just  and  true  history." 

In  another  place,  he  shous,  "That  St.  Luke's 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  ought  to  be  equally  received 


224 


with  his  gospp]  ;  for  that  in  them  he  has  carefully 
delivered  t.  us  the  truth,  and  given  to  us  a  sure 
rule  for  salvation."  Again,  he  says,  -'Paul's  ac- 
count of  ills  going  to  Jerusalem,  exactly  agrees 
with  Luke's,   m  the  Acts." 

Clemens  Alexan-irinus,  citing  PauFs  speech  at 
Athens,  introduces  it  thus,  "So  Luke,  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  relates." 

Tertullian  cites  several  passages  out  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which  he  calls,  Commen- 
tarius  Lucse^  The  Commentary  of  Luke. 

Okigen,  ascribes  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  to 
Luke. 

EusEBius  says,  "  Luke  has  left  us  two  inspired 
volumes,   The  Gospel,  and  the  Acts." 

Jerome  expressly  asserts,  "That  the  Acts,  was 
the  composition  of  Luke." 

The  Syriac  Verion  of  the  New  Testainent,  as- 
cribes the  Acts  to  Luke  ;  and  in  some  very  an- 
cient Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  his  name 
is  prefixed  to  this  book. 

To  this  uniform  body  of  ancient  testimony,  there 
is  nothing  which  can  be  objected,  except  that  the 
author  of  the  Synopsis,  commonly  ascribed  to 
Athanasius,  says,  "Peter  dictated  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  but  Luke  wrote  them."  But  if  this 
were  true,  it  would  not  in  the  least  detract  from 
the  authority  of  the  book,  but  rather  increase  it. 
One  testimony,  however,  can  be  of  no  avail,  against 


986 

so  many  ;  and  we  know,  that  Luke  knew  most  of 
tlie  facts  recorded  in  this  book,  by  his  own  person- 
al observation,  and  needed  no  one  to  dictate  them 
to  him.  Besides,  Peter  was  nOt  an  eye-witness  of 
the  greater  number  of  the  facts,  related  in  this 
book. 

The  time  when  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  was 
written,  may  be  determined  pretty  accurately,  by 
the  time  when  the  history  which  it  contains  ter- 
minates ;  that  is  about  A.  D.  62  ;  for  no  doubt,  he 
began  to  write  soon  after  he  left  Rome. 

That  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  of  Canonical 
authority  is  proved,  from  its  having  a  place  in  all 
the  ancient  catalogues  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament. 

The  same  is  evinced,  by  the  numerous  citations 
from  this  book,  by  the  early  Fathers  ;  who  expli- 
citly appeal  to  it,  as  of  divine  authority — as  an  in- 
spired book. 

It  is  plainly  referred  to  in  more  instances  than 
one,  by  Clement  of  Rome,  the  fellow  labourer  of 
Paul. 

PoLYCARP  the  disciple  of  John,  also  cites  a  pas- 
sage from  the  Acts,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians. 

It  is  cited  by  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  Exhor- 
tation to  the  Greeks. 

It  is  distinctly  cited  by  Irenjeus,  more  than 
thirty  times,  in  some  of  which  inslancfs  it  is  ex- 
pressly called,  Scripture  ;  and  the  credit  and  au- 


226 

thority  of  the  book  are  largely  discussed,  in  hi« 
work  against  Heretics. 

The  citations  of  Terttjlltan,  from  this  book, 
are  too  numerous  to  be  particularized.  He  also 
quotes  it  expressly,  under  the  nameof  Scuipture; 
*'  Which  part  of  Scripture,"  says  he,  "  they  who 
do  not  receive,  must  deny  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  be  ignorant  of  the  infant  state  of  the 
Christian  Church."* 

This  book  was  also  constantly  read  as  Scripture, 
in  the  weekly  assemblies  of  Christians,  all  over  the 
world. 

From  the  testimonies  adduced  above,  it  will  ap- 
pear with  convincing  evidence,  how  unfounded  is 
the  opinion  of  some  learned  men,  tliat  the  Acts,  in 
the  early  period  of  the  church,  was  verylittle  known^ 
comparatively,  and  very  little  esteemed.  This 
opinion  has  been  favoured  by  such  men  as  Father 
Simon,  and  Dr.  Mill;  and  has  no  other  foundation 
than  a  passage  in  the  Prolegomena  to  the  Acts, as- 
cribed to  Chrtsostom,  the  genuineness  of  which  is 
very  doubtful.  But  if  Chrysostom  was  the  au- 
thor of  this  passage,  how  little  can  it  weigh  against 
such  a  host  of  witnesses.  The  passage  referred  to, 
is,  "  This  book  is  not  so  much  as  known  to  many; 
they  know  neither  the  book  nor  by  whom  it  was 
written."  Now,  the  same  might  be  asserted,  re- 
specting all  the  books  in  the  Canon,     There  are  ma- 

*  De  Prescriptione. 


227 

iiy  persons  ignorant  of  what  ihey  contain,  and  un- 
acquainted with  their  object.  But  there  is  no  need 
to  dwell  longeron  this  objection. 

The  Acts  of  the  Aposiles,  therefore,  has 
an  indisputable  claim  to  a  place  in  the  sacred  Canon. 
No  better,  or  stronger  evidence,  can  be  desired. 
It  is  true,  that  some  of  the  earliest  heretics  did  not 
receive  this  book  as  (Canonical.  Tertullian  in- 
forms us,  that  it  was  rejected  by  Cerdo,  the  mas- 
ter of  Marcion,  and  some  others  whom  he  does  not 
name,  but  whom  he  refutes. 

PniLASTRius  informs  us,  that  the  Cerinthiansdid 
not  receive  this  book. 

And  Augustine  tells  us,  that  thcManichees  did 
not,  because  they  considered  Manes  to  be  the  Par- 
aclete, promised  by  the  Saviour  ;  but  in  the  Acts^ 
it  is  declared  to  have  been  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
descended  on  the  apostles,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

"  But,  "  says  Father  Simon,"  let  us  leave  these 
enthusiasts,  who  had  no  other  reason  for  rejecting 
the  books,  received  by  tlie  whole  church,  except 
that  they  did  not  suit  with  the  idea  which  they 
had  formed  of  the  Christian  Religion, " 


SECTION     X. 


TESTIMONIES  TO  THE  CANONICAL  AUTHORITY  OF 
THE  FOURTEEN  EPISTLES  OF  PAUL. 

On  the  subject  of  Paul's  Epistles,  there  is  a 
universal  consent  among  the  ancients,  except  as  it 
relates  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ;  which  hav- 
ing been  published  without  the  apostle's  name  and 
usual  salutation,  many  conjectured,  that  it  was  the 
production  of  another  person  :  and  while  some  as- 
cribed it  to  Barnabas,  others  thought  that  either 
Clement,  or  Luke,  was  the  writer.  There  seems 
to  have  been  a  difference  between  the  Eastern  and 
Western  churches  on  this  subject ;  for  the  Greeks 
appear  to  have  entertained  no  doubts,  in  regard  to 
Paul's  being  the  author  of  this  Epistle  :  it  was 
only  among  the  Latins,  that  its  genuineness  was 
a  matter  of  uncertainty.  And  the  most  learned 
among  these,  adopted  the  opinion,  that  it  was  the 
production  of  Paul  ;  and,  by  degrees,  its  autho- 
rity was  fully  established  in  the  West,  as  well  as 
the  East.  The  true  state  of  the  case  will,  how- 
ever, appear  more  clearly,  by  citing  the  testimonies 
of  the  Fathers,  than  by  any  general  representa- 
tion. 

Although,  Clement,  the  fellow-labourer  of 
Paul,  frequently   citesr  passages  from  the  gospels 


«29 

and  Epistles,  yet  he  never  expressly  mentions 
any  book  of  the  New  Testament,  except  Paul** 
First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  ;  to  whom  also 
Clement's  Epistle  was  addressed.  His  words  are, 
**Take  into  your  hands  the  Epistle  of  blessed 
Paul,  the  apostle.  What  did  he  at  first  write  to 
you,  in  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  ?  Verily  he 
did,  by  the  Spirit,  admonish  you,  concerning 
himself,  and  Cephas,  and  Apollos  ;  because  that 
even  then  you  did  form  parties."  There  are  ia 
this  Papistic  of  Clement,  many  other  passages,  in 
which  the  words  of  Paul  are  cited,  but  tliis  is  the 
only  one  in   which  his  name  is  mentioned. 

Her]mas,  and  Ignatius  also,  often  quote  the 
words  of  Paul's  Epistles,  but  the  book  from  which 
they  arc  taken,  is  not  designated. 

PoLTCARP,  the  disciple  of  the  apostle  John,  and 
bishop  of  Smyrna,  who  suffered  martyrdom,  in 
extreme  old  age,  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  after  sentence  of  death  was  pronounced 
upon  him,  wrote  an  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  in 
which  he  makes  express  mention  of  Paul's  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  '*Do  ye  not  know, 
that  the  saints  shall  judge  the  worlds  as  Paul 
teaches." 

He  also  quotes  a  passage  from  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians,  under  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture. 
**For  I  trust,"  says  he,   *'  ihat  ye  are  well  exer- 

See  1  Cor.  vj.  2. 

XT  2 


330 

cised  in  tlie  Holy  Scriptures — As  in  tliese  Scrip- 
tures it  is  said,  Be  ye  angry  and  sin  not ;  let  not 
the  sun  go  down  upon  your  wrath.  Poly- 
carp,  also  cites  passages  from  the  second  Epis- 
tle to  the  Corinthians  ;  from  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians ;  from  the  First  and  Second  to  the 
Thessalonians  ;  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  \ 
and  from  both  the  Epistles  to  Timothy;  but 
as  is  usual,  with  the  apostolical  Fathers,  he  does 
not  refer  to  the  books  or  authors  from  which  he 
makes  his  citations. 

Justin  Martyr,  quotes  many  passages  in 
the  very  words  of  Paul,  without  mentioning  his 
name.  But  iRENiEus  distinctly,  and  frequent- 
ly, quotes  thirteen  of  Paul's  Epistles.  He  takes 
nothing,  indeed,  from  the  short  Epistle  to  Phile- 
mon, which  can  easily  be  accounted  for,  by  the 
brevity  of  this  letter,  and  the  special  object  which 
the  apostle  had  in  view,  in  penning  it. 

It  would  fill  a  large  space,  to  put  down  all  the 
passages  cited  by  Irenaeus,  from  the  Epistles  of 
Paul.  Let  it  suffice  to  give  one  from  each  :  "  This 
same  thi:ig,  Paul  has  explained,  writing  to  the 
Romans,  Paul  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  sepa- 
rated to  the  gospel  of  God.  And  again,  wiiting 
to  the  Romans  of  Israel,  he  says.  Whose  are  the 
Fathers,  and  of  whom,  concerning  the  fleshy 
Christ  came,  who  is  God  over  all  blessed  forever- 

Ephes.  iv.  26. 


231 

more.  "This  also  Paul  manifestly  shows,  iu 
his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  saying,  Moreover 
brcthi'en  I  would  no/  that  ye  should  he  igyiorantj 
how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud. 
Paul,  in  the  Second  to  the  Corinthians,  says,  In 
whom  the  God  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the 
eyes  of  them  that  believe  not.''  "  The  aposile 
Paul  says,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  fVhere- 
fore  then  serveth  the  law  of  works  ?  It  ivas  added 
until  the  seed  should  come,  to  whom  the  prom- 
ise was  made.''  '*  As  also  the  hiesscd  Paul  says, 
in  ihc  Epistle  lo  the  Ephesi.nis,  For  ive  are  mem- 
bers of  his  body,  of  his  Jlesh,  and  of  his  bones." 
"As  also  Paul  says  to  the  Philippians,  I  am  full 
having  received  of  Epaphroditus,  the  things 
which  were  sent  from  you,  an  odour  of  a  sweet 
smell,  a  sacrifice,  acceptable^  well  pleasing  to 
God.'"  "Again,  Paul  says,  in  his  p]pistle  to  the 
Colossians,  Luke  the  beloved  physician  saluteth 
you."  "The  apostle  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians  says,  Jind  the  God  of  peace  sancti- 
fy you  wholly."  '*  And  again,  in  iht;  Second  Epis- 
tle to  the  Thessalonians,  speaking  'tf  Antichrist,  he 
says,  ^nd  then  shall  that  wicked  one  be  reveal- 
ed."    In  the  heginning  of  his  work  against  here- 

Rom.  i.    1.     ix.  5.  Cor.  x.  1. 

2  Cor.  iv.  4.  Gal.  iii.  19. 

Ephes.  V.30.  Phil.  iv.    13. 

Col.  iv.  14.  1  TJies.  V.  23, 

Thes.  XI.  0 


252 

aifs,  he  says,  <<  Whereas  some  havinpj  rejected  the 
truth,  hringin  lying  words,  and  vain  getiealogies, 
rather  than  godly  edifying,  which  ?s  in  faithy 
as  saith  the  Apostle."  This  Epistle  is  often  quoted 
by  Irenaeus,  in  the  work  above  mentioned.  Speak- 
ing ot  Linus,  bishop  of  Rome,  he  says,  *' Of  this 
Linus,  Paul  makes  mention  in  his  Epistle  to  Tim- 
othy, Eubulus  greeteth  thee^  and  Pudens,  and 
Linus  "  '*  As  Paul  says,.^  man  that  is  an  here' 
tic  after  the  first  and  second  admonition,  reject.'* 
Thus,  we  have  seen,  that  Irenaeus,  who  lived  in 
tht  age  immediately  succeeding  that  in  which  Paul 
lived  and  wrote,  has  borne  explicit  testimony  to  all 
the  Epistles  of  that  apostle,  which  have  his  name 
prefixed,  except  the  short  Papistic  to  Philemon,  from 
which,  it  is  probable,  he  had  no  occasion  to  take 
any  authorities,  as  it  is  very  concise,  and  addressed 
to  a  friend  on  a  particular  subject,  in  which  Paul 
felt  deeply  interested. 

As  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews^  which  is  ano- 
nymous, there  is  ample  evidence,  that  Irenjeus 
was  acquainted  with  it ;  but  it  is  doubtful,  whei her 
he  esteemed  it  to  be  the  production  of  Paul,  or 
some  other  person.  As  he  resided  in  France,  it  is 
very  possible,  that  he  participated  in  the  prejudice 
of  tlie  Western  church,  on  this  point.  Euskbius  in- 
forms us,  that  he  had  seen  a  work  of  Iren^us, 
which  has   not   reached  our   times,  in   which  he 

1  Tim.  i.  4.  2  Tim.  iv.  21.  Tit.  iii.  10. 


333 

cites  passaoces  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hehrews  ; 
bii  he  does  not  siy,  that  he  quoted  them  as  Paul's. 
A.iul  in  his  works,  which  are  still  extant,  there 
are  several  passagjes  cited  from  this  Epistle,  but 
without  direct  reference  to  the  source  whence  thej 
were  derived. 

Athenagoras  quotes  from  several  of  Paul's 
Epistles  ;  but  as  has  been  seen  to  be  the  custom  of 
the  early  Fathers,  he  commonly  uses  the  words, 
without  informing  the  reader,  from  what  author 
they  were  borrowed.  There  is,  hOwevfr,  one 
passage,  in  which  he  refers  to  both  the  First  and 
Second  Epistles  to  the  Corinlhiana,  as  being  the 
production  of  the  apostle  Paul.  *'  It  is  manifest 
therefore,"  says  he,  "  that  according  to  the  apostlC; 
This  corruptible  and  dissipated  yniist  put  on 
incorniption,  that  the  dead  heiix^  raised itp.^  and 
the  separated  and  even  consumed  parts  being 
again  united,  every  one  may  receive  justly,  the 
things  he  hath  done  in  the  body^  whether  they 
he  good  or  bad.''''* 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  abounds  in  quotations 
from  Paul's  Epistles  ;  a  few  of  which  will  be  suf- 
ficient for  our  purp'jse.  •*  The  apostle,  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,,  says.  Behold  therefore  the 
goodness  and  severity  of  God.^^  *'The  blessed. 
Paul,  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  says, 
Brethren  be  not  children  in  understanding,  how- 

I  Cor.  XV.  54.    2  Cor.  v.  10. 


234 

beitf  in  malice  be  ye  children,  but  in  under- 
standing be  ye  men. "  He  hus  also  many  quotations 
from  the  Second  to  the  Corinthians,  "  The  apos- 
tle," says  he,  "calls  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Faith,  a  savour  of  knowledge,  in  the  Second  to 
the  Corinthians."  '<  Hence  also,"  says  Paul,  "  ye 
have  these  promises,  dearly  beloved,  let  us  cleanse 
our  hearts  from  all  filthiness  of  the  flesh  and 
spirit,  perfecting  holiness,  in  the  fear  of  God. 
"Whereupon,  Paul  also  writing  to  the  Galatians, 
says,  My  little  children  of  whom  I  travail  in 
birth,  again  until  Christ  be  formed  in  you.^' 

*'  Whereupon  the  blessed  apostle  says,  I  testify 
in  the  Lord  that  ye  walk  not  as  other  Gentiles 
tvalk.^^  Again  ;  ^^ Submitting  yourselves  one  to 
another  in  the  fear  of  God.''^  He  quotes  part  of 
the  First  and  Second  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  expressly  ;  and  in  another  place,  he 
quotes  the  same  epistle,  after  this  manner  :  '*  The 
Apostle  of  the  Lord  also  exhorting  the  Macedon- 
ians, says,  The  Lord  is  at  hand,  take  heed  that 
ive  be  not  fou7id  empty." 

Clement,  also,  quotes  the  Epistle  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  and  the  Epistles  to  the  Tiiessalonians.  From 
the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy, he  cites  this  passage, 
OTlmothy,  keep  that  which  is  committed  to  thy 
trust,  avoidins^profane  and  vain  bablings,  and 
oppositions  of  science,  falsely  so  called,    which 

1  Cor.  xiv.  20.  1   Cor.  ii.  14.  2  Cor.  vii.  1. 

Gal   iv.  9.  Ephes.  iv.  17,  18.  Eph.  V.  21.» 

Eph.  iv.  5. 


2S5 


som/i  pre/em' nsc,  have  erred  concernitiff  the 
Jailh.  Oil  wiiich  he  Dbs('rv<s,  <'llerciic>»  con- 
futed hy  this  saying,  reject  both  Epistles  to  riino- 
thy."  The  Epistle  to  Tilus,  is  also  quoted  sev- 
eral tim»^s  ;  and  he  remarks,  in  one  place,  "  that 
Paul  had  cited  F^pimenides,  he  Cretan,  in  his  Kois- 
tl  to  Titus,  after  this  mann»r,  Owe  of  them.sr/i'cs, 
a  poet  of  their  oion,  said,  the  Cretans  ac  lU 
luays  liars. ^^  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebnw-  is  il- 
so  disti!,ctlv  quot'  d  and  is  ascribed  to  Paul,  as  its 
author.  Wherefore,  vvriting  to  the  Hebrews,  who 
were  declining  from  the  faith  to  the  Law,  Paul  says, 
Have  ye  need  that  any  teach  yon  again,  which 
he  the  frst  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God,  and 
are  become  such,  as  have  need  of  milk,  and  not 
of  strong  meat. 

Tkrtullian  frequently,  and  expressly,  quotes 
most  of  Paul's  Epistles.  In  one  place,  he  says,  "I 
will  therefore  by  no  means  say,  God,  nor  Lord, 
but  I  will  follow  the  apostles  ;  so  that  if  the  Father 
and  the  Son  are  mentioned  together,  I  will  say, 
God  the  Father,  and  Jesus  Christ  the  Lord.  But 
when  I  mention  Christ  only,  I  will  call  him  God 
as  the  apostle  does,  Of  tohom  Christ  came,  ivho 
is  over  all  God  blessed  for  evermore." 

Paul  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  speaks 
ot  tliose,  who  doubted,  or  denied  the  resurrection. 

In  his  Treatise  on  Monogamy,  he  computes,  that  it 

1  Tim.  vi.  20  21.  Tit.  i.  12,  13. 

Heb.  V.  12.  Rom.  ix.'s. 


236 

was  about  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  from  Paul's 
writing  this  Epistle,  to  the  time  when  he  wrote. 
'^'In  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  they  sup- 
pose the  apostle  Paul  to  have  forgiven  the  same 
fornicator,  who  in  the  First,  he  declared,  ought  to 
be  delivered  to  Satan  tor  the  destruction  of  theflesh." 
''  But  of  this,  no  more  need  be  said,  if  it  be  the 
same  Paul,  who,  writing  to  the  Galatians,  reckons 
heresy  among  the  works  of  the  flesh  ;  and  who  di. 
rects  Titus  to  reject  a  man  that  is  a  heretic,  after  the 
first  admonition,  knowing  that  he  that  is  such  is 
subverted  and  sinneth,  being  condemned  of  him- 

self.'' 

"  I  pass,"  says  he,  *•'  to  another  Epistle,  which 

we  have  inscribed  to  the  Ephesians  ;  but  the  he- 
retics, to  the  Laodiceans."  Again,  "According 
to  the  true  testimony  of  the  church,  we  suppose 
this  Epistle  to  have  been  sent  to  the  Ephesians, 
and  not  to  the  Laodiceans  ;  but  Marcion  has  en- 
deavoured to  alter  this  inscription,  upon  pretence 
of  having  made  a  more  diligent  search  into  this 
matter.  But  the  inscriptions  are  of  no  impor- 
tance, for  the  apostle  wrote  to  all,  when  he  wrote 
to  some." 

Speaking  of  the  Christian's  hope,  he  says,  <<0f 
which  hope  and  expectation,  Paul  to  the  Galatians 
says.  For  we  through  the  spirit  wait  for  the  hope 
of  righteouness  by  faith.  He  does  not  say,  we 
have  obtained  it,  but  he  speaks  of  the  hope  of  the 
righteousness  of  God,  in  the  day  of  judgment,  when 


237 

our  reward  shall  be  decided.  Of  which  bcine;  ia 
suspense,  when  he  wrote  t.j  the  Ptiiiippians,  he 
said,  If  by  any  means,  I  might  attain  unto  tlic 
resiirrection  of  the  dead;  not  as  though  I  fuid 
already  attained,  or  ivere  already  perfect.  "The 
aposile,  writiiigto  the  Colos>.ians,  expressly  cautions 
against  philosophy,  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you 
through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit^  after  the 
tradition  of  men,  and  not  after  the  instruction 
of  the  Spirit."  "And  in  llie  Epistle  to  the  Thes- 
salonians,  the  aposile  adds,  But  of  the  times 
and  the  seasons,  brethren,  ye  have  no  need  that  1 
write  iDitoyon.  For  yourselves  knotv  perfectly, 
that  the  day  of  the  Lord  so  comet  h  as  a  thief  in  the 
?iight."  "And  in  the  second  episile  to  the 
same  persons,  he  writes  with  gpreater  solicitude. 
But  I  beseech  yon,  brethren,  by  the  coming  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  thai  ye  be  ?wt  soon  shaken  in 
mind,  nor  be  troubled."  "And  this  word,  Paul 
has  used  in  writing  to  Timotby,  O  Timothy  keej} 
that  which  is  committed  to  thy  trust." 

That  remarkable  passag;e  of  Tertullian,  in 
which  he  is  supposed  to  refer  to  the  existina;  auto- 
i;raphs  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  althouijb  referred  to 
already,  may  with  propriety  be  here  introduced. 
"Well,".says  he,"  if  you  be  vvillin;:;  to  exercise  your 
curiosity  profitably, in  the  business  of  your  salvation, 
visit  the  apostolical  churches,  in  which  the  very- 
chairs  of  the  apostles  still  preside,  in   which    their 

Phil.  iii.  11,12.  1  Tlics.  v.  1,  2,  3.  2  TJies.  ii.  2. 

Col.  ii.  8.  1  Tim.  vi.  30. 

X 


238 

very  authentic  letters  (Authenticse  Literae)  are  re- 
cited, sending  forth  the  voice,  and  representing 
the  countenance  of  each  one  of  them.  Is  Achaia 
near  you  ?  You  have  Corinth.  If  you  are  not 
far  from  Macedonia  ;  you  have  Philippi  ; — :you 
have  Thessalonica.  If  you  can  go  to  Asia  ;  you 
have  Ephesus.  But  if  you  are  near  to  Italy,  you 
have  Rome,  from  whence  also  we  may  be  easily 
satisfied." 

There  are  three  opinions  respecting  the  meaning 
of  this  phrase  .^z«Me«Y?c«  Literse  ;  authentic  let- 
ters ;  the  first  is,  that  it  signifies  the  original  manu- 
scripts of  the  apostles; — the  authographs  which  were 
sent  severally  to  the  churches  named,  to  all  of 
which  Paul  addressed  Epistles;  the  second  opinion 
is,  that  Tertullian  meant  to  refer  his  readers  to 
the  original  Greek  of  these  epistles,  which  they  had 
been  accustomed  to  read  in  a  Latin  version  ;  and 
the  third  is,  that  this  phrase  means,  well  authenti- 
cated letters;  Epistles,  which  by  application  to 
these  churches,  could  be  proved  to  be,  genuine  wri- 
tings of  the  apostles. 

Now,  that  the  first  of  these  is  the  true  sense  of 
Tertullian's  words,  will,  I  think,  appear  very 
probable,  if  we  consider,  that  if  those  autographs 
were  preserved,  even  with  common  care,  they 
would  have  been  extant  in  the  time  of  Tertullian, 
who  reckons  only  160  years  from  the  time  oi 
Paul's  writing  to  his  own  time. 

And  again, unless  he  meant  this, there  is  no  reason 
why  he  should  direct  his  readers  only  to  those  ci- 


239 

lies  \\  liicli  had  received  Epistles  ;  for  doubtless  ma- 
ny other  churches,  which  mi»;ht  he  more  accessi- 
ble, had  aiithenlic  copies,  in  the  Greek  languap;e. 
Such  copies  undoubtedly  existetl  in  Africa,  where 
Tcrtullian  lived.  Miey  need  not  therefore  have 
been  directed  to  go  to  Rome,  or  Corinth,  or  F^phe- 
sus,  or  Philippi,  or  Thessalonica,  to  seethe  Epis- 
»los  of  Paul,  in  Greek. 

Neither  was  it  necessary  to  take  a  journey  to 
these  cities  to  be  fully  convinced,  that  the  letteris 
Nvhich  had  been  received  by  them, were  genuine;  for 
thft  evidence  of  this  fact  was  not  confined  to  these 
distinguished  places,  but  was  diflfused  all  over 
the  Christian  world. 

From  these  considerations,  I  conclude,  that  in 
Tertullian'^  time,  tliese  churches  had  in  possession, 
and  preserved  with  care,  the  identical  Epistles  sent 
to  them,  by  Paul.  This  sense  is  confirmed,  by 
what  he  says,  of  their  being  able  to  hear  the  voice, 
and  behold  the  countenance  of  the  apostles,  and  sees 
the  very  seats  on  which  they  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  sit  when  they  presided  in  the  church. 
These  scats  were  still  occupied  by  the  bishops,  and 
seemed  to  preside,  as  they  were  venerable  from 
having  been  once  occupied  by  the  apostles. 

Tertullian  was  acquainted  with  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ilebrovvs,  for  he  quotes  several  passages  from  the 
sixth  chapter,  but  he  ascribes  it  to  Barnabas,  and 
not  to  Paul.    In  this  opinion,  I  believe  he  is  singular. 

O'dGEN,  quotes  Paul's  Epistles,  as  expressly  and 
frequently,  as  is  done,  by  almost  any  modern  writer. 


.240 

To  transcribe  all  the  pa^sasffs  cited  by  him,  would 
be  to  put  down  a  larsre  portion  of  tliC  vvritings 
of  this  apostle.  A  few  instances, Avill  be  sulficient. 
In  one  passage,  in  his  wtjrk  against  Celsiis,  he 
mentions  several  of  Paul's  f^pistles  t02;tther,  in  the 
following  manner,  "Do  you,  first  of  all  explain  the 
Epistles  of  h:m  who  says  these  things,  and  having 
diligently  read,  and  atteijded  to  tiie  sense  of  the 
words  there  used, particularly,  it)  that  to  the  Ephe- 
sians  ;  tothe  Thessaloaians  ;  to  the  Philippians  ;  to 
the  Romans,  &c."  The  epistle  tothe  Ephesians,  is 
elsewhere  quoted  by  Origen,  with  the  inscription 
which  it  now  bears. 

After  employing  an  argument  founded  on  a  pas- 
sage, quoted  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  he 
observes;  "But  possibly  someone  pressed  with 
this  argument,  will  take  refuge  in  the  opinion  of 
those  who  reject  this  Epistle,  as  not  written  by 
Paul.'^  In  answer  to  such,  we  intend  to  write  a 
distinct  discourse,  to  prove  this  to  be  an  Epistle  of 
Paul.'^  In  his  citations  of  this  Epistle,  therefore,  he 
constantly  ascribes  it  to  Paul,  in  such  expressions 
as  these,  "Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews," 
*'In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, the  samePaul  says." 

But  Origen  not  only  expresses  his  own  opinion 
on  this  subject,  but  asserts  that  by  the  tradition  re- 
ceived by  the  ancients,  it  was  ascribed  to  Paul. 
His  words  are,  "For  it  is  not  without  reason,  that 
the  ancients  have  h:ii.ded  it  down  to  us  as  Paul's.'* 
Now.  when  we  take  into  view  that  Origen  lived 


J 


241 

within  one  hunclretl  years  of  Ihe  time  of  the  apostles, 
and  that  he  was  a  prrson  of  most  extraordinary 
learning;,  and  that  he  had  travelled  much  through 
difTercnt  countries,  his  testimony  on  this  point  is  of 
great  weight ;  especially,  since  his  opinion  is  found- 
ed on  the  testimony  of  the  ancients,  by  whom  he 
must  mean  the  contemporaries  of  the  apostles. 
At  the  same  time,  however,  he  mentions,  that 
some  ascribed  it  to  Luke,  and  others  to  Clement  of 
Rome. 

CvrKiAx,  often  quotes  the  Epistles  of  Paul. 
*' According,"  says  he,  ''to  what  the  blessed 
apostle  wrote  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Every 
07ie  shall  give  accoiail  of  himself  to  God^  there- 
fore, let  us  not  judge  one  another."  In  his 
First  hook  of  Testimonies,  he  says.  In  the  First 
Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  it  is  said, 
Moreover,  brethren,  I  ivojild  not  ye  should  be 
ignorant,  hoiv  that  all  our  Fathoms  were  bapti- 
zed unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea." 
*'  Likewise,  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, it  is  written,  '•'  Their  minds  ivere  blinded 
until  this  day."  '^In  like  manner,  blessed 
Paul,  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Lord,  says,  Ao^i/ 
he  that  ministereth  seed  to  the  sower,  ininistei- 
bread  for  your  food  and  multiply  your  seed 
sown,  and  increase  the  fruits  of  your  righteous- 
ness,  that  ye  m,ay  be  enriched  in  all  things.'" 

Rom.    xiv.    12.  1  Cor.  .x.   1. 

2  Cor.  iii.  15.  2  Cor.  ix.  10. 


242 

''Likewise  Paul  to  the  Galatiaiis,  says,  When  the 
jfulness  of  time  ivas  comCy  God  sent  forth  his 
Son,  made  of  a  woman. " 

Cyprian,  expressly  quotes  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  under  that. title.  "But  the  apostle 
Paul,  speaking  of  the  same  thing  more  clearly  and 
plainly,  writes  to  the  Ephesians,  and  says,  Christ 
loved  the  church,,  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that 
he  m,ight  sanctify  and  cleanse  it,  ivith  the  wash- 
ing of  ivater.  So  also,  Paul  to  the  Phillppians, 
says,  Who  being  appointed  in  the  form  of  God, 
did  not  earnestly  affect  to  be  equal  with  God, 
hut  m.ade  himself  of  no  reputation,  taking  on 
him  the  form  of  a  servant  ;  and  being  made  in 
the  likeness  of  man,  and  found  in  fashion  as  a 
man^  he  humbled  himself,  becoming  obedient 
unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross."  "In 
the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Colossians,  it  is  written. 
Continue  in  prayer,  watching  i7i  the  same.^^ 
■'  Likewise,  the  blessed  apostle  Paul,  full  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  sent  to  call  and  convert  the  Gentiles, 
warns  and  teaches.  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you 
through  philosophy,  &c.''  He  also  quotes  both 
the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians.  In  his  book  of 
Testimonies,  he  says,  "  If  the  apostle  Paul  writing 
to  Timothy,  said.  Let  no  7nan  despise  thy  youth, 
mucii  more  may  it  be  said  of  you  and  your  col- 
leagues, let  no  man  despise  thy  age."    "  Therefore 

Gal.  iv.  5.  Ephcs.  v.  25,  26.        Phil.  ii.  6—B- 

Col.  ii.  S.  vi.  2.     1  Tim.  w.  W. 


243 

the  apostle  wriles  to  Timothy,  and  exhorts,  thai 
a  bisfmp  shuit/d  not  strivCy  but  be  gentle,  mid 
apt  to  teach.''''  These  two  Epistles  arc  elsewhere 
quoted  distinctly,  as  the  First  and  Second  to  Tim- 
othy, lie  also  quotes  from  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
the  passage,  <'»^  man  that  is  an  heretic  after 
the  first  and  second  admonition,  reject.''^ 

Cyprian,  no  where,  quotes  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  Il  IS  prohal)'e  therefore,  that  he,  like 
some  others  of  the  Latin  Fatlu.rs,  did  nut  believe 
it  to   be    Paul's  ;  or    was    iloubtful    respecting  it 

Neither  dues  he  cite  the  Epistle  to  rhileinon  , 
of  this  1)0  oihrr  reiison  need  be  scnight,  hut  its  con- 
tents, and  bif.'vity.  How  many  Christian  autiiors 
have  written  volumes,  without  any  citation  of  that 
Ejiistle. 

VicToRiNUS,  who  lived  near  the  close  of  the 
third  century,  often  quotes  Paul's  Epistles  ;  and 
among  the  rest,  he  cites  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, which  he  seems  to  have  believed  to  be  the 
production  of  Paul. 

DvoNisiusof  Alexandria,  also  a  contemporary  of 
Origen,  and  a  man  of  great  learning,  in  the  few 
fragments  of  his  works  which  remain,  often  refers 
to  Paul's  Epistles. 

NovATUs,  presbyter  of  the  church  of  Rome,  who. 
flourished  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
expr;ssly  cites  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
thai  famous  testimony  to  Christ's  divinity,  so  often 
quoted  by  the  Faihers,    ff'hose  are  t/ie  Fathers, 

Tit.  jii.  10.  2  Tnn.  ij.  24. 


244 

of  whom  is  Christ  according  to  the  flesh,  who 
is  over  all  God  blessed  forever.  And  it  deserves 
to  be  r»col]ected,  that  althous;^  so  many,  begin- 
ning with  Irenaeus,  have  cited  this  passage,  yet  none 
of  them  appear  to  have  th  ^ught  the  words  capable 
of  any  other  meaning,  than  the  plain,  obvious 
sens-,  which  strikes  the  reader  at  first.  That  it 
was  a  mere  exclamation  of  praise,  sterns  never  to 
have  enti^red  their  minds.  Novatus,  also,  quotes 
the  First  and  Second  EpistUs  to  the  Corinthians, 
the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  to  the  Ephesians, 
and  to  the  Philippians.  From  this  last  Epistle  he 
cites  thcise  remarkable  words.  Who  being  in  the 
form  of  God,  and  interprets  the  following  clause 
in  exact  accordance  with  another  of  the  Fathers, 
did  not  earnestly  seek  to  be  like  God,ur  to  be  equal 
with  God.  He  quotes  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Culos- 
sians, these  words,  Whether  they  he  tht^ones  or  do- 
minions, or  principalities,  or  powers,  things  vis- 
ible and  invisible,  by  him  all  things  cofisisf. 
The  Epistles  to  Timothy,  and  to  Titus,  are  also 
cited  by  this  author. 

Methodius,  who  lived  in  the  later  part  of  the 
third  century,  quotes  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
Firtst  and  Second  to  the  Corinthians,  To  the  Gala- 
tians, To  the  Ephesians,  To  the  Philippians,  To 
the  Colossians,  The  First  to  the  Thessalonians, 
and  the  First  to  Timothy.     He  has  also  taken  se> 

Phil.  ii.  6.  Col.  i.  .16>  17, 


245 

veral  passages  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hehr^vvs  ; 
anil  quotes  it  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  retuhr  it 
highly  prohahlc,  that  he  estee(iie«l  it  to  ho  a  part 
of  Sacred  Scripture,  and  ascribed  it  to  P;iul. 

.Eu!»EBins,  the  learned  historian,  undonlitedly  re- 
ceived thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul  as  genuine  ;  and 
he  seems  to  have  entertained  no  donht,  res|>ecting 
the  Canonical  auth-'Hty  of  the  Epistle  to  i he. He- 
brews ;  but  he  sometimes  expresses  himsell  doubt- 
fully, of  iis  author;  while  at  other  times  he  quotes 
it  as  Paul's,  without  any  a[)parent  hesitation.  In 
speaking  of  the  universally  acknowjedged  Epistle 
of  Clement  of  Rome,  he  observes,  "  In  which, 
inserting  many  sentiments  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  also  using  some  of  the  very  words 
of  it,  he  plainly  manifests  that  Epistle  to  be  no 
modern  writing.  And  hence,  it  has,  not  without 
reason,  been  reckoned  among  the  other  writings 
of  the  apostle  ;  for  Paul  having  written  to  the 
Hebrews  in  their  own  language,  some  think  that 
the  Evangelist  Luke,  others,  that  this  very  Clem- 
ent, translated  it  ;  which  last  is  the  more  probable 
of  the  two,  there  being  a  resemblance  between  the 
style  of  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  and  that  to  the 
Hebrews  ;  nor  are  the  sentiments  of  these  two 
writings  very  ditferent."  In  his  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, he  speaks  "  Of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
and  divers  othfr  Epistles  of  Paul."  And  Theo- 
doret  positively  asserts,  tiiat  Euscbins  received  this 
Epistle  as  PaiiP.-J,    and  tiiat  he  manilested  that  all 


246 

the  ancients,  almost,  were  of  the  same  opinion. 
It  seems,  from  these  facts,  that  in  the  time  of  Eu- 
sebius,the  churches  with  which  he  was  acquainted, 
did  generally  receive  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
as  the  writing  of  Paul. 

Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan,  received  fourteen 
Epistles  of  Paul. 

Jerome  received  as  undoubted,  all  Paul's  Epis- 
tles, except  that  to  the  Hebrews,  concerning  which 
he  says,  in  his  Letter  to  Evanjj;elius,  ''  That  all 
the  Greeks  and  some  of  the  Latins,  received  this 
Epistle." 

And  in  his  letter  to  Dardanus,  "That  it  was  not 
only  received  as  Paul's,  by  all  the  churches  of  the 
East,  in  his  time,  but  by  all  the  Ecclesiastical  wri- 
ters, in  former  times  ;  though  many  ascribe  it  to 
Barnabas,  or  Clement.  He  u\s'>  says,  that  it  was 
daily  read  in  the  churches  ;  and  if  the  Latiiss  did 
not  receive  this  Epistle,  as  the  Greeks  rejected 
the  Revelation  of  John,  he  received  both  ;  not  be- 
ing so  much  influenced  by  present  times,  as  the 
judgment  of  ancient  writers,  who  quote  both ;  and 
that  not  as  they  quote  apocryphal  books,  and  even 
Heathen  writings,  but  as  Canonical  and  Ecclesias- 
tical." 

Jerome, in  speaking  of  the  writings  ofPaul,gives 
the  following  very  full  and  satisfactory  testimony  ; 
**He  wrote,''  says  he,  '*nine  Epistles  to  seven 
churches.  To  the  Romans,  one;  to  the  Corinthians, 
two ,:    to    the  Galatians,    one  ;  to  the  Philippians. 


247 

one  ;  to  the  Colossians,  one  ;  to  the  Thessalonians, 
two  ;  to  tho  Ephesians,  oru*  ;  to  Timothy,  two  ; 
to  Titus,  one  ;  to  Philemon,  one.  liutthe  Kpistle, 
cailciJ,  TO  THK  TIkbuews,  is  not  thougiit  to  be 
his,  bei^iuse  of  the  dilTerence  of  ai  t>;ument  ami  style  ; 
buf  rather  Barnabas's,  as  Teriulli;in  thought  ;  or 
Luke's,  accordino;  to  some  oth  r.^  ;  or  Clement's, 
who  was  afterwards  bisho])  of  Rome  ;  who  bring 
much  with  Paul,  clothed  and  adorne  Paul's  sense, 
in  his  own  language.  Or  if  it  be  Paul's,  he  might 
decline  putting  his  name  to  it,  in  the  inscription, 
for  fear  of  offending  the  Jews.  Moreovi'r,  he 
wrote  as  a  Hebrew  to  the  Hebrews  ;  it  being  his 
own  language,  whence  it  came  to  pass,  that  being 
translated,  it  has  more  eh  gance,  in  the  Greek,  than 
his  other  Epistles.  This  they  say  is  the  reason  6f 
its  differing  from  Paul's  other  writin-js.  There 
is  also  an  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  ;  but  it  is  re- 
jected by  every  body."  Jerome,  commonly  quotes 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  the  Apostle  Paul's  ; 
and  as  we  have  seen  before,  this  was  his  prevailing 
opinion,  which  is  not  contradicted  in  the  long  pas- 
sage, just  cited. 

Augustine  received  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul, 
the  last  of  which,  in  his  catalogue,  is,  the  E[)islle 
to  the  Hebrews  ;  he  was  aware  however,  that  some 
in  his  time  thought  it  of  doubtful  authority,**  How- 
ever, says  he,  '*  I  am  inclined  to  ffdiow  the  opin- 
ion of  the  churches  of  the  East,  who  receive  it, 
amongthe  Canonical  Scriptures. 


248 

The  time  when  each  of  these  Epistles  was  writ* 
ten,  taniioc  be  ascertaineti  with  any  exaotness. 
It  is  not  t  ven  aaived  Tm<>ng  the  learned,  which  was 
the  First  of  Paul's  Epistles.  Geuerally,  indeeti,  it 
has  been  thought,  that  tiie  two  Epistles  to  the  Tiies- 
salonians,  were  composed  earliei  thaii  the  others  ; 
but,  bf  late,  some  learned  men  have  given  prece- 
dence to  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  And  this  opin- 
ion is  not  altogether  confined  to  the  moderns,  for 
Tertullian  mentions  this  Epistle  as  among;  the  first 
of  Paul's  writings.  But  the  more  common  opin- 
ion is,  that  it  was  written  during  the  long  abodt:  of 
this  apostle,  at  Corinth,  Among  the  advocates  of 
this  opinion  we  find  L'Enfant,  Beausobre,  Lard- 
ner,  &c. ;  Grotius,  Capel,  Witsius,  and  Wall,  sup- 
pose, that  it  was  written  at  Ephesus.  These  last, 
together  with  Fabricius  and  Mill,  place  the  date  of 
this  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  after  that  to  the  Ro- 
mans. 

Macknight  maintains,  that  it  was  written  from 
Antioch,  after  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  of- 
fers in  support  of  his  opinion  several  plausible  ar- 
guments, v\hich,  if  they  do  not  prove  all  that  he 
wishes,  seem  to  render  it  probable  that  the  time 
of  this  Epistle  being  written,  was  soon  after  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem. 

Semler,  however,  is  of  opiniton  that  this  Epis- 
tle was  written  prior  to  the  Council  of  Jerusa- 
lem. 


,249 

JiVom  these  various  opinions,  it  is  sufficiently 
evident,  that  tlic  precise  date  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  cannot  be  ascertained.  If  we  lake  the 
opinions  of  tho><c  who  give  the  earliest  date,  the 
time  of  writing  will  not  be  later  than  A.  D.  47. 
But  if  we  receive  as  more  probable  the  opinions  of 
thtise  who  think  that  it  was  written  after  the  Coun" 
cil  of  Jerusalem,  we  shall  bring  it  down  to  the  year 
.50  ;  while  according  to  the  opinion  more  com- 
lYionly  adopted,  its  date  will  be  A.  D.  52,  or  A.  D- 
5.^.  And  if  we  prefer  the  opinions  of  those  who 
assign  the  latest  date  to  this  Epistle,  we  shall  bring 
it  down  several  years  later,  and  instead  of  giv- 
ing it  the  first  place,  will  give  it  the  ninth  or 
•tenth. 

There  seem  to  be  better  daia  for  determining, 
that  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  was 
written  from  C«)rmlh,  ahout  the  y«ar  51  ;  and  the 
First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  was  probably 
Avritten  a  few  months  afterwards,  from  the  same 
7)lac*e. 

Michaclis  and  Dr.  H  des  unite,  in  giving  the 
next  place,  in  the  order  of  tinnie,  to  the  Epistle  to 
Titus.  Lardner,  however,  places  it  considerably 
later;  and  Paley  assigns  to  it  a  date,  later  than  any 
other  author.  On  this  subject,  there  is  little  else 
than  conjecture  to  gtiide  us. 

The  year  in  which  this  Epistle  was  written,  ac- 
cording to  Michaelis  and  Males,  was  53  ;  ace  rd- 
ing   to    Lardner,   5b  ;    according  to    Jiarringion, 


250 

57  j  and  according  to  Whitby,  Pearson,  and  Pa- 
ley,  65, 

The  Epistle  next  in  order,  is  the  First  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, the  date  of  which  can  be  determined 
with  considerable  precision,  from  theEpisfle  itself. 
I  will  tarry  at  Ephesus  until  Pentecost.  These 
words  teach  where  this  Epistle  was  written,  and  by  a 
comparison  with  other  passages  of  Scripture,  that 
it  was  penned  near  the  close  of  Paul's  long;  resi- 
dence at  Ephesus,  from  which  place  he  departed, 
about  A.  D.  57.  This  then  is  the  proper  date  of 
this  Epistle. 

The  First  Epistle  to  Timothy  will  stand  next, 
if  we  follow  the  opinion  most  commonly  entertain- 
ed by  learned  men;  and  its  date  >vill  be,  A.  D.  57, 
or  A.  D.  5S.  This  opinion  is  supported  by  the 
authority  of  Athanasius,  Theocloret,  Baronius,  Ca- 
pellus,  Blondel,  Hammond,  Grotius,  Salmasius, 
Lightfoot,  Benson,  Barrington,  Michaelis,  Dod- 
/dridge,  and  others.  But  Pearson,  Rosenmiiller, 
JMacknight,  Paley,  Tomline,  &.c.  place  it  as  low  as 
the  year  of  our  Lord  G4,  or  65. 

The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  writ- 
ten, probably,  about  a  year  after  the  First,  which 
will  bring  it  to  A.  D.  58. 

'  In  the  same  year,  it  is  thought,  that  Paul  wrote 
his  very  important  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  On 
this  point  however,  there  is  some  diversity  of  opi- 

1  Cor.  xvi.  8. 


251 


moil.  Rut  the  Epistle  itself  contains  internal  evi- 
dence that  it  was  written  at  Corinth,  when  the 
a])i)Stle  was  preparing  to  lake  the  contributions  of 
the  churches  to  Jerusalem. 

The  date  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  to  the 
Philippians,  and  to  the  Coiossians,  can  be  ascertain- 
ed pretty  nearly,  from  the  circumstance,  that  Paul 
was  prisoner  at  Rome,  when  they  were  written. 
Tlio  Epistle  to  the  Epiiesians,  may,  with  much  pro- 
bability,  be  referred  to  A  U.  (il  ;  the  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians  to  A.  D.  62  ;  and  the  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians  to  the  same  year. 

The  short  Epistle  to  Philemon  was  written,  as 
appears  by  several  coincidences,  about  the  same 
time,  as  those  just  mentioned. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  seems  to  have  been 
written  about  the  termination  of  Paul's  first  impri- 
sonment at  Rome.  Its  date,  therefore,  may  with- 
out much  danger  of  mistake,  be  referred  to  A.  D. 
62,  or  A.D.  G3. 

J.  D.  Michaelis,  who,  as  has  been  seen,  has  done 
much  to  unsettle  the  Canon  of  Scripture  by  calling 
in  question  the  _s;enuineness  of  some  of  the  books, 
as  well  as  the  inspiration  of  some  of  the  writers, 
has,  in  an  elaborate  essay,  (Vol.  iv.)  endeavoured  to 
lessen  the  authority  of  this  Epistle.  For  an 
answer  to  the  arguments  of  this  learned,  but  scep- 
tical Professor,  I  would  refer  the  mador  to  Town- 


252 

send's  New   Testament,  Arranged  in  Chro- 
nological AND    Historical  Okdek. 

Paul's  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  seems  to  have 
been  written  during  his  second  imprisonment  at 
Rome,  and  shortly  before  his  death,  A.  D.  66. 


SEOTIOXr     xz. 

CANONICAL  AUTHORITY  OF     THE  SEVEN  CATHOLIC 
EPISTLES. 

The  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  the  First  ot'' 
John,  are  quoted  by  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  and 
Papias,  but  not  expressly,  as  the  writings  of  these 
apostles.  For  tlie  particular  passages  cited,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  Lardner, 

Justin  Martyr  has  a  saying  which  is  now  here 
found  in  Scripture,  cxce|)t  in  the  Second  of  Peter. 
It  is,  That  a  day  of  the  Lord  is  a  thousand 
years. 

DioGNETiis  quotes  several  passages  from  the 
First  of  Peter,  and  the  First  of  John. 

Irenjeus  quotes  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  ex- 
pressly; "  And  Peter  says,  in  his  Epistle,  JVhom 
haviiig  not  seen,  ye  love.'^  And  from  the  Second, 
he  takes  the  same  passage,  which  has  just  been  cit- 
ed, as  quoted  by  Justin  Martyr.  The  First  and 
Second  of  John  are  expressly  quoted  by  this  Fa- 
ther, for  after  citing  his  gospel)  he  goes  on  to  say, 
"  Wliercfure  also  in  his  Epistle,  he  says,  Little 
children  it  is  the  last  time.''  And  again,  "In 
the  forementioned  Epistle,  the  Lord  c»3mmands  u? 
tD  shun  those  person?,  who  bring  false  doctrine, 
T  2 


254 

saying,  Many  deceivers  are  entered  into  the 
worldy  loho  confess  not  that  Jesus  Chynst  is  come 
in  the  flesh.  This  is  a  deceiver,  and  an  Jlnti- 
christ.  Look  to  yourselves  that  ye  lose  not 
those  things  which  ye  have  wrought."  Now  these 
words  are  undoubtedly  taken  from  John's  Second 
Epistle.  Irenaeus,  seems  indeed,  to  quote  them  from 
the  First,  but  this  was  probably  a  slip  of  the  me- 
mory. 

Several  passages  out  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  are 
also  cited  by  this  Father,  but  without  any  distinct 
reference  to  the  source  whence  they  are  derived. 

Athenagoras,  also,  has  some  quotations  which 
appear  to  be  from  Jamesj  and  Second  Peter. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  often  quotes  First  Pe- 
ter ;  and  sometimes  Second  Peter.  The  First 
Epistle  of  John  is  often  cited  by  liim.  Jude  also 
is  quoted  several  times  expressly,  as,  ''Of  these 
and  the  like  heretics,  I  think  Jude  spoke  propheti- 
cally, when  he  said,  /  ivill  that  ye  should  know, 
that  God  having  saved  the  people  out  of  Egypt, 
&c.  He  has  a  rcmai'k  on  Jude's  modesty,  that  he 
did  not  style  himself  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  al- 
though he  was  r-lated  to  him,  but  begins  his  Epis- 
tle, Jude  the  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  broth- 
er of  James. 

Tertcllian,  often  quotes  the  First  Epistle  of 
John  ;  but  he  has  in  none  of  his  remaining  wri- 
iings  cited  any  thing  from  James,  Second  Peter, 
or  the  Second  of  John,     He   has,  however,  onr 


255 

express  quotation  from  Judc,  **  Hence  it  is,"  says 
lie,  "that  Enoch  is  quoted  by  the  aposile  Jude.>' 

Obigi.x,  in  his  commentary  on  Si.  John's  dos- 
pel,  expressly  quotes  the  Epistle  of  James,  in  the 
following  passa'jje,  "  For  though  it  be  called  faith, 
if  It  be  without  works,  it  is  dead,  as  we  read  in  the 
Epistle  ascribed  to  James.''  This  is  the  only 
passage  in  the  remaining  Greek  works  of  this 
Father,  wliere  this  Ijook  is  quoted  ;  but  in  his  Lat- 
in works,  translated  by  Rufin,  it  is  cited  as  the 
Epistle  of  James,  the  apostle,  and  brother  of  our 
Lord  ;  and  as  '^Divine  Scripture."  The  First  of 
Peter  is  often  quoted  expressly.  In  his  book  against 
Celsu',  he  says,  "As  it  is  said  by  Peter,  Ye  a.^ 
lively  stones  are  built  up  a  spiritual  hotise." 
Again,  '*  Peter  in  his  Catholic  Papistic,  says.  Put 
to  death  in  the  Jlesh^but  quickened  in  the  spirit^ 

According  to  Eusebius,  Origen  considered  the 
Second  of  Peter  as  doubtful,  and  in  his  Greek 
works  there  are  no  clear  citations  from  it  ;  but 
there  are  found  a  few  in  his  Latin  works. 

In  the  passage  preserved  by  Eusebius,  he  says, 
that  some  were  doubtful,  respecting  the  Second 
and  Third  of  John,  "but  for  my  part,"  says  he, 
**  let  them  i)e  granted  to  be  his." 

0"iOEN  has  cited  several  passages  from  Jiulc, 
which  are  found  in  no  other  part  of  Scripture  ;  and 
in  one  plare  remarks,  ''Jude  wrote  an  Epistle  of  few 
lines  iruiced,  but  full  of  powerful  words,  and  Heav- 
enly grace,  who  at  the  beginning,  says,  **Jude  ths 


256 

servant  of  Jesits  Christ,  and  brother  of  Janies.'^ 
In  another  place,  he  shows,  that  some  were  doubt- 
ful of  this  Epistle,  for  he  says,  "  But  if  any  one 
receives  also  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  let  him  consider 
what  will  follow,  from  what  is  there  said,"  Tliis 
Epistle  is  cited  in  his  Latin  works  also  ;  and  sev- 
eral times,  in  a  Latin  Epistle  ascribed  to  Origen. 

Cyprian  no  where  quotes  the  Epistle  of  James  ; 
but  the  Frst  of  Peter  is  oflen  cited.  Several  times 
he  speaks  of  it,  as  the  Epistle  of  Peter  to  the  peo- 
ple of  Pontus.  He  expressly  ascribes  it  to  "Pe- 
ter the  apostle,"  "the  apostle  of  Christ,"  <^'C. 

The  Second  of  Peter,  he  never  quotes.  The 
First  of  John  is  often  quoted  by  Cj'prian.  "  The 
apostle  John,"  says  Ii^,  "mindful  of  this  com- 
mand, writes  in  this  Epistle,  Hereby  we  perceive 
that  toe  know  him,  for  we  keep  his  command- 
ments. He  that  saiih  I  know  hiin,  andkeepetli 
not  his  commandments,  is  a  liar,  and  the  truth 
is  not  in  him."  The  Second  and  Third  of  John, 
he  never  mentions,  nor  the  Epistle  of  Jude. 

The  opinion  of  Eusebius  of  Cesarsea,  respecting 
the  Epistle  of  James,  was,  that  it  was  written  by 
one  of  Christ's  disciples,  by  the  name  of  James,  but 
he  makes  three  of  that  name.  Although  he  admits, 
that  the  writer  of  this  Epistle  was  the  brother  of 
our  Lord,  who  was  made  the  first  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem ;  yet  he  will  nDt  allow,  that  he  was  one  of 
the  Twelve.  In  his  commentarv  on  the  Psalms, 
be  says, ."  Is  any  among  you  afflicted?  let  him 


pray.  Is  any  merry  ?  let  him  sing  psalms,  as  the 
sacred  apostle  says."  In  other  parts  of  his  works, 
he  speaks  very  doubtlully  of  this  Epistle,  and  in  one 
passage,  whrre  he  distributes  the  books  into  class- 
es, he  mentions  thiS  Epistle  among  the  books  which 
he  calls  spurious  ;  by  which,  however,  he  only 
means,  that  it  was  not  canonical.  In  his  Ecclesi- 
astical history,  he  speaks  of  the  Epistles  of  Peter, 
in  the  following  manner,  "One  E|;istle  of  Peter, 
called  his  First,  is  universally  received  This  the 
presbyters  of  ancient  times,  have  quoted  in  their 
writings,  as  undoubtedly  genuine  ;  but  that  called 
his  Second  Epistle,  we  have  been  informed,  has 
not  been  received  in:othe  Testament.  Neverthe- 
less, it  appearing  to  many  to  be  useful,  has  been 
carefully  studied  with  the  other  scriptures."  And 
in  another  passage,  he  says,  "  That  called  the  First 
of  John  and  the  First  of  Peter,  are  to  be  esteemed 
authentic.  Of  the  controverted,  yet  well  known  or 
approved  by  the  most,  are,  that  called  the  Epis- 
tle of  James,  and  that  of  Jude,  and  the  Second  of 
Peter,  and  the  Second  and  Third  of  John,  wliether 
they  were  written  by  the  Evangelist,  or  by  ano- 
ther." 

A  iHANAsius  quotes  the  Epistle  of  James,  as  writ- 
ten by  the  a^)^slle  James.  The  First  Epistle  of 
Peter  is  frequently  quoted  by  him  ;  and  he  also 
cites  passages  from  the  second  Epistle,  and  ascribes 
them  to  Peter,  lioth  the  fust  and  second  Epis- 
ties  of  John,  ;ue  distinctly,  and  expressly  quoted  ; 


258 

the  third  is  not  mentioned.    He  also, in  two  instan- 
ces, cites  the  words  of  Jude.  - 

Jerome's  testimony  coiicerninjo;  the  Epistle  of 
James,  is  full  and  explicit.  His  words  are,  '"  James-, 
called  the  Lord's  brother,  suniamed  Justus,  as 
some  think  son  of  Joseph,  bv  a  former  wife  ;  but 
as  I  rather  thi-ik,  the  son  of  Mary,  the  sister  of  ou^" 
Lord's  mofh'^r,  mentioned  by  John  in  his  gospel, 
(soon  after  our  Lord's  passion  ordained  by  the 
apostles  bishop  of  Jerusalem,)  wrote  but  one 
Epistle,  which  is  among;  the  Seven  Catholic  Epis- 
tles ;  which  too  has  been  said  to  ha.ve  been  pub- 
lished by  another  in  his  name  ;  but'  gradually,  in 
process  of  time,  it  has  gained  authority.  This  is 
he  of  whom  Paul  writes,  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  ;  and  he  is  often  mentioned  in  the  Acts 
of  the  apostles  ;  and  also  several  times  in  the  gos- 
pel, called,  ACCORDING  TO  THE  Hebrews  lately 
translated  by  me  into  Greek  and  Latin." 

Attgustine  received  all  the  Catholic  Epistles. 
H-'  quotes  James  as  an  apOstle.  He  often  cites 
both  the  Ei)istles  of  Peter.  He  also  refers  to 
John's  three  Epistles,  and  quotes  Jude,  and  calls 
him  an  apostle. 

In  the  works  of  Ephrem,  the  Syrian,  who  lived, 
and  wrote  voluminously,  in  the  4th  (^e^ntury,  there 
are  express  quotations  from  the  Epistle  of  James, 
from  the  Second  of  Peter,  the  Second  and  Third 
of  John,  and  from  Jude,as  well  as,  from  those 
Catholic  Epistles  which  were  undisputed. 


jg59 

RrFix  received  all  the  l)oolis  asCaiionical,  vviucli 
are    now    so    esleemed    by   christians    generally. 
Why   these   Kpisilcs  have  received  llu;  appella- 
tion of  Catholic,  various  reasons  have  heen  assign- 
ed. 

Some  have  supposed  that  they  were  so  called, 
because  they  contain  the  one  catholic  docirine 
which  was  delivered  to  the  churches  by  Ike  apos- 
ties  of  our  Saviour,  and  which  might  be  read  by  the 
universal  church. 

Others  are  of  opinion  that  they  received  this 
appellation,  because  they  were  not  addressed  to 
one  person,  or  church,  like  the  Epistles  of  Paul  ; 
but  to  the  Catholic  church.  This  opinion  seem>«  not 
to  be  correct,  for  some  of  them  were  written  to 
the  Christians  of  particular  countries,  and  others  to 
indi\  iduals. 

A  third  opinion,  advanced  by  Dr.  Hammond, 
and  adopted  by  Dr.  IMacknight,  and  which  has 
some  probability,  is,  that  the  First  of  Peter,  and 
First  of  John,  being  received  by  all  Christians,  ob- 
tained the  name  of  Catholic,  to  distinguish  them 
iVom  those  which  at  first  were  not  universally  re- 
ceived ;  but  in  process  of  time,  these  last  coming 
to  be  universally  received,  were  put  into  the  same 
class  with  the  first,  and  the  whole  thenceforward 
had  the  appellation  of  Catholic 

'I'his  denomination  is  as  old  as  the  time  of  Euse- 
bius.  and  probably  older,  lor  Origen  repeatedly 
/called  John's  First  Epistle  Catholic  ;  and  the  same 


mo 

IS  done  by  Dyonisius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria.  The 
sanip  appellation  was  given  to  the  Whole  seven  by 
Athanasius,  Epiphanius,  and  Jerome. 

Of  these,  it  is  probable,  that  the  Epistle  of  James 
was  first  written,  but  at  what  precise  time,  cannot 
be  determined. 

As  there  were  two  disciples  of  the  name  of 
James,  4t  has  been  much  disputed,  to  which  of 
them,  this  Epistle  shoukl  be  attributed.  Lardner 
and  Mackiiight,  have  rendered  it  exceedingly 
probable,  that  this  Epistle  was  vvritten  by  James 
1he  Less,  who  is  supposed  to  have  been  related  to 
our  Lord,  and  who  seems  for  a  long  time  to  have 
had  the  chief  authority  in  the  church  at  Jerusalem: 
but  Michaelis,  is  of  a  different  opinion,  and  says, 
th;)t  he  sees  no  reason  for  the  assertion,  that  James, 
the  son  of  Zebedee,  was  not  the  author  of  this 
Epistle."  But  the  reasons  which  he  assigns  for 
his  opinion,  have  very  little  weight. 

The  date  of  this  Epistle,  may,  with  considerable 
probability,  be  referred  to  the  year  62  ;  for  it  is 
supposed  that  James  was  put  to  death,  in  the  fol- 
lowing year. 

Its  Canonical  authority  and  divine  inspiration, 
although  called  in  question  by  some,in  ancient  as  well 
as  modern  times,  ought  to  be  considered  as  un- 
doubted. One  strong  evidence  that  it  was  thus  re- 
ceived by  earlyChristians,  may  be  derived  from  the 
old  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament;  which, 
while  it  leaves  out  several  other  books,  contains 
this. 


261 

It  seems  not  to  have  been  as  well  known  in  the 
Wesiern  rhui'chesas  niost  utlicr  buoks  of  Scrij>iure, 
but  learned  men  lia\e  obsi-rved,  that  Clrmeni  of 
Rome  has  quoted  it  no  kss  than  four  limes  ;  and  it 
18  also  quottd  by  Ignatius  m  his  genuine  Epistle  to 
theEphehians  ;  and  we  have  already  shown,  th;it  it 
was  received  as  the  writing  ot  the  apostle  James, 
by  Origo;.,  Athanasius  and  Jerome. 

Tlie  First  Epistle  of  Peter  has  ever  been  consi- 
dered authentic,  and  has  been  cited  by  Clement 
of  Rome,  Polycarp,  The  Martyrs  of  Lyons,  Theo- 
phikis  J3isiiopof  Antioch,  Papias,  Irenaeus,  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandiia,  and  Tcrtullian.  The  only 
matter  of  doubt  respecting  this  Epistle  is,  what 
place  we  are  to  understand  by  Babylon,  where  Pe- 
ter was,  when  he  wrote.  On  this  subject,  there  are 
three  opinions;  the  first,  that  by  this  name  a  place 
in  Egypt  is  signified;  the  second,  that  Babylon  in 
Assyria  properly  so  called  is  meant;  and  the  third, 
which  is  generally  maintained  by  the  Romanists, 
and  some  Protestants,  is,  that  Rome  is  here  called 
Babylon.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  understood,  that 
this  Epistle  was  written  from  Rome. 

The  time  of  this  Epistle  being  written  was  pro- 
bably about  the  year  of  our  J^ord  65  or  66. 

Tlie  date  of  the  Epislle  of  Jude,  may  as  well  be 
placed  about  the  same  period  as  at  any  other  time,for 
we  huve  nt;  documents  which  can  guide  us  to  any 
certain  decision.  The  objection  to  the  Canonical  au« 
thority  oi  this  Epistle, derived  from  the  author's  hav- 

7. 


263 

irig  quoted  the  Apocryphal  book  of  Enoch,  is  of  no 
validity  ;  for  the  f^ct  is,  that  Jucle  makes  no  men- 
tion of  any  book,  but  only  of  a  prophecy,  and  there 
is  no  evidence  that  the  Apoci  yphal  book  of  Enoch 
was  then  in  existence;  but  if  he  did  quote  a  truth 
from  such  a  book,  it  argues  no  more  against  his  in- 
spiration, than  Paul's  quoting  Epimenides  does, 
agaiiist  his  being  an  inspired  man. 

The  three  Epistles  of  John  were  probably  writ- 
ten about  the  year  96  or  97.  It  has  commonly 
been  supposetl  that  the  Apocalypse  was  the  last 
■written  book  of  the  New  Testament,  but  Town- 
send  insists,  that  the  Three  Epistles  of  John  were 
l^st  written.  See  Townsend's  New  Testament, 
Vol  ii. 


SECTION     ZZI. 

ViANONlCAL   AUTHORITY    OF    THE     BOOK    OP    REVE-, 
LATION. 

Hermas  gives  many  indications  of  having  read 
the  Revelation  ;  for  he  often  imitates  John's  de- 
scription of  the  New  Jerusalem  ;  and  sometimes 
borrows  his  very  words.  He  speaks  of  the  Book 
OF  Life,  and  of  those  whose  names  are  wrritten  in 
it.  He  speaks  also  of  the  Saints,  whom  he  saw, 
being  clothed  in  garments  white  as  snow. 

Papias  also,    doubtless   had   seen    the  book  of 
Revelation  ;  for  some  of  his  opinions  were  founded 
on  a  too  literal  interpretation  of  certain  prophecies 
of  this  book.     But  neither  Papias  nor  Hermas  ex 
pressly  cite  the  Revelation. 

Justin  Martyr,  is  the  first,  who  gives  explicit 
testimony  to  the  Apocalypse.  His  words  are, 
*' And  a  man  from  among  us,  by  name,  John,  one 
of  the  apostles  of  Christ,  in  the  Revelation  made 
to  him,  has  prophesied,  that  the  believers  in  our 
Christ,  shall  live  a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem  ; 
and  after  that  shall  be  the  general,  and  indeed 
eternil  resurrection,  and  judgment  of  all  men, 
together." 

In   THE  Epistle    of    the  Church  at  Lyons 
AND    ViENNE,    in    France,    which    was  written, 


264 

about  the  year  of  our  Lord,  one  hundred  and  eigh- 
ty, there  is  one  passage  cited  from  the  book  of  Re- 
velation :  "  For  he  was  indepd  a  genuine  disciple 
of  Clirist,  following  the  Lamb,  whiihepsoever  he 
s^oes.'" 

Iren^us  expressly  quotes  the  Revelation,  and 
ascribes  it  to  John,  the  apostle.  And  in  one  place, 
he  says,  "  It  (The  Revelation,)  was  seen  no  long 
tim*^  ago,  in  our  age,  at  the  end  of  the  reign  of 
Doniitian."  And  in  the  passage  preserved  by  Eu- 
sebius,  he  speaks  of  the  exact  and  ancient  copies 
of  this  book  ;  which  he  says,  ''  was  confirmed 
likewise  by  the  concurring  testimony  of  those  who 
had  seen  Jolm." 

Theophilus  of  Antioch,  also,  as  we  are  assur- 
ed by  Eusebius,  cited  testimonies  from  the  Apo- 
calypse of  John,  in  his  book  against  Hermogenes. 
And  in  his  works,  which  are  extant,  there  is  one 
passage  which  shows,  that  he  was  acquainted  with 
the  Revelation,  "This  Eve,"  says  he,  "because 
she  was  deceived  by  the  serpent — the  evil  demon, 
who  is  also  called  Satan,  who  then  spoke  to  her 
by  the  serpent — Joes  not  cease  to  accuse  :  this 
demon  is  also  called,  the  Dragon." 

The  Revelation  of  John,  is  often  quoted  by  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  In  one  passage  he  says, 
*<Such  an  one,  though  here  on  earth,  he  be  not 
honoured  with  the  hrst  seat,  shall  sit  upon  the 
four  and  twenty  thrones,  judging  the  people,  as 
John  says  in  the  Revelation."     That  Clemeat  be. 


265 


lieved  if  to  he  the  work  of  the  apostle  John,  is 
manifest,  because  in  another  place,  he  expressly 
cites  a  passage,  *'As  the  words  of  an  apostle  ;" 
and  we  have  just  seen  tha't  he  ascribes  the  work  to 
John. 

Tertullian  cites  many  things  from  the  Reve- 
lation of  John  ;  and  he  seems  to  have  entertained 
no  doubt  of  its  being  the  writing  of  tlie  apostle 
John,  as  will  appear  by  a  few  quotations  ;  "John, 
in  his  Apocalypse,  is  commanded  to  correct  those 
who  atf  things  sacrificed  to  idols,  and  comniit 
fornication."  Again,  *^The  apo.stle  John,  in  the 
Apocalypse,  describes  a  sharp  two-edged  sword, 
coming  out  of  the  mouth  of  God." — "  We  have 
churches,  dis'^iplcs  of  John,  for  though  Marcion 
rejects  his  Revelation,  the  succession  of  bishops, 
traced  to  the  original,  will  assure  us,  that  John  is 
the  autlior. "  And  in  another  place,  he  has  a  long 
quotation  from  the  book  of  Revelation. 

HippoLYTL's,  who  lived  in  the  third  century, 
and  had  great  celebrity,  both  in  the  Eastern  and 
Western  churches,  received  the  Revelation,  as 
without  doubt  the  production  of  the  apostle  John. 
Indeed,  he  seems  to  have  written  a  comment  on 
this  book,  for  Jorome  in  the  list  of  his  works,  men- 
tions one,    "Ot>   the  R''velati()n." 

Ilippolytus  was   hrld  in  so   liigh  esteem,  (hnt  a 

noble  monument  was  erected  to  hinr)   in  thr  city  of 

Rome,   which   after  lying   for  a    long    time  biu'ied, 

was  dug    up,   near   that  city,  A.    I).    15!)1.     1V]< 

7.  2 


266- 

name,  indeed,  is  not  now  on  the  monument,  but* 
it  -contains  a  catalogue  of  his  works,  sev»'ral  of 
which  have  the  same  titles  as  those  ascribed  to 
Hippolytus,  by  Jerome  and  Eusebius ;  together 
with  others,  not  mentioned  by  them :  among 
which,  is  one,  "  Of  the  Gospel  of  John,  and  the 
Revelation." 

Origen  calls  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse, 
"  Evangelist  and  apostle;"  and  on  account  of  the 
predictions  wliich  it  contains,  ^'  Prophet"  also. 
In  his  book  against  Celsus,  he  mentions,  "  John's 
Revelation,  and  divers  other  books  of  Scripture." 

It  was  Origen's  intention  to  write  a  commentary 
on  this  book,  but  whether  he  ever  carried  his  pur- 
pose into  execution,  is  unknown.  Nothing  of 
the  kind  has  reached  our  times. 

Dyonisius  of  Alexandria,  who  lived  about  ,the 
middle  of  the  third  century,  and  was  one  of  the 
most  learned  men  of  his  time,  has  entered  into  a 
more  particular  discussion,  of  the  Canonical  antho- 
rity  of  the  book  of  Revelation  than  any  other  an- 
cient author.  From  what  has  been  said  by  him,. 
we  learn,  on  what  account  it  was,  that  this  book, 
after  having  been  universally  received  by  the  ear- 
lier Fathers,  fell,  with  some,  into  a  certain  degree 
of  discredit.  About  this  time,  the  Chiliasts,  or 
Milienarians,  who  held  that  Christ  would  reign 
visibly  on  earth  with  his  Saints  for  a  thousand  years, 
during  which  period,  all  manner  of  earthly  and  sensi- 
ble pleasures  would  be  enjoyed,  made  their  appear- 


261 


ance.  This  opinion  they  derived  from  a  literal  iu- 
terpretation  of  some  passages  in  the  book  of  Reve- 
lation ;  and  as  their  error  was  very  repugnant  to 
the  feelings  of  the  most  of  the  Fathers,  they  were 
led  to  doubt  of  the  authority,  or  to  disparage  ihe 
value  of  the  book,  from   which  it  was  derived. 

The  first  rise  of  the  Millenarians,  of  the  grosser 
kind,  seems  to  have  been  in  the  district  of  Arsi- 
noe,  in  Egypt  ;  where  one  Nepos  composed  seve- 
ral works  in  defence  of  their  doctrine;  particular- 
ly a  book  ♦*  Against  the  Allegorists. "  Dyor)isius 
took  much  pains  with  these  errorists,  and  entered 
with  them  into  a  free  and  candid  discussion  of 
their  opinions,  and  of  the  true  meaning  of  the  book 
of  Revelation  :  and  had  the  satisfaction  to  reclaim 
a  number  of  them  from  their  erroneous  opinions. 
His  own  opinion  of  the  Revelation  he  gives  at 
large,  and  informs  us,  thai  some,  who  lived  before 
his  time,  had  utterly  rejected  this  book,  and  ascri- 
bed it  to  Cerinihus  ;  but  for  his  own  part,  he  pro- 
fesses to  believe,  that  it  was  written  by  an  inspired 
man,  whose  name  was  John,  but  a  different  person 
from  the  apostle  of  that  name  ;  for  which  opiniouj^ 
he  assigns  several  reasons, but  none  of  much  weight. 
His  principal  reason  is,  that  the  language  of  this 
book  is  different  from  that  of  the  apostle  John,  in 
his  other  writings.  To  which  Lardner  judiciously 
answers,  that  supposing  this  to  be  the  fact,  it  will 
not  prove  the  point,  for  tlie  style  of  prophecy  is 
very    different  from  the  epistolary,  or   historical 


268 

style.  But  this  laborious  and  learned  collector  of 
facts,  denies, that  there  is  such  a  difference  of  style, 
as  to  lay  a  foundation  for  this  opinion  :  and  in  con- 
firmation of  his  own  opinion,  he  descends  to  parti- 
culars, and  shows,  that  there  are  some  striking 
points  of  resemblance  between  the  language  of 
the  Apocalypse  and  the  acknowledged  writings  of 
the  apostle  John. 

The  opinion  of  those  persons  who  believ- 
ed it  to  be  the  work  of  Cerinlhus,  is  utterly 
without  foundation;  for  this  book  contains  opinions 
expressly  contrary  to  those  maintained  by  this 
heretic  ;  and  even  on  the  subject  of  the  Millenium, 
his  views  did  not  coincide  with  those  expressed  in 
the  Revelation. 

Caius  seems  to  have  been  the  only  ancient  author 
who  attributed  this  book  to  Cerinthus,  and  to  him 
Dyonisius  probably  referred,  when  he  spoke  of 
some  before  his  time,  who  held  this  opinion. 

CypRiAN,  bishop  of  Carthage,  received  the  book 
of  Revelation,  as  of  Canonical  authority,  as  appears^ 
by  the  manner  in  which  he  quotes  it.  "  Hear," 
says  he,  "  in  the  Revelation,  the  voice  of  thy  Lord, 
reproving  such  men  as  these,  Thou  sayest  I  am 
rich  and  increased  in  goods,  and  have  need  of 
nothings  and  knowest  not  that  thou  art  wretch- 
ed, and  miserable,  and  poor,  and  blind,  and 
naked  " 

Again,   ''So  in  the  Holy  Scripture?,  by  which 

Rev.  iii.  17- 


269 

ihe  Lord  would  have  us  to  be  instructed  and  warn- 
ed, is  the  harlot  city  described." 

Finally,  *'  That  waters  signify  people,  the  divine 
Scriptures  show,  in   the  Revelation." 

VicTORiNUS,  who  lived  towards  tlie  close  ot 
the  third  c^-ntnry,  often  cites  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion, and  ascribes  it  to  John  the  Apostle. 

That  Lactantius  received  this  bi)ok,  is  mani- 
fest, because  he  has  written  much  rc^specting  the 
futiire  destinies  of  the  church,  which  is  founded  on 
the  prophecies   whieh  it  contains. 

Until  the  fourth  century,  then,  it  nppears,  that 
the  Revelation  was  almost  universally  received  ; 
not  a  writer  of  any  credit  calls  it  in  question  ;  and 
but  one  hesitates  about  ascribinsj  it  to  John  the 
apostle  ;  but  even  he  held  it  to  be  written  by 
an  inspired  man.  But  about  the  heginninej  of 
the  fourth  century,  it  began  to  fall  into  discredit 
with  some,  on  accoufit  of  the  mysterious  nature  of 
its  contents  ;  and  the  encouragement  w  ich  it  was 
supposed  to  give  to  the  Chiliasts.  Therefore  Eu- 
sebius  of  Cesaraea,  after  giving  a  list  of  such  books 
as  were  universdly  receive  I,  adds,  "After  these, 
if  it  be  thought  fit,  may  he  placed  the  Revelation 
of  John,  concerning  which  we  shall  observe  the 
different  opinions,  -At  a  pr^iper  time  "  And  'g'hi, 
"  There  are,  concerning  this  book,  diflerent  opin- 
ions." 

Rov.  xvii.   1 ,  2,  3. 


270 

This  is  the  first  doubt  expressed  by  any  respect- 
able >^riter,  coiicernino;  the  Canonical  authority  of 
this  book ;  and  Eusebius  did  not  reject  it,  but 
Would  have  it  placed  next  after  those  which  were  re- 
ceived with  universal  consent. 

And  wp  find,  at  this  very  time,  the  most  learned 
and  judicious  of  the  Fathers  received  the  Revelation 
witiioiit  scruple,  and  annexed  it  to  their  catalogues 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

Thus,  Athanasius,  after  giving  an  account  of  the 
twenty  two  Canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
proceeds  to  enumerate  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  the  following  manner,  which  he  makes 
oight  in  number.  1.  Matthew's  Gospel ;  2.  Mark's  ; 
3.  Luke's  ;  4  John's  ;  5.  The  Acts  ;  6.  The  Ca- 
tiiolic  Epistles  ;  7.  Paul's  Fourteen  Ep'Stles  ;  And, 
8.  The  Revelations,  given  to  John  the  Evangelist 
and  divine,   in  Patmos. 

Jerome,  in  giA'itig  an  account  of  the  writings  of 
John  the  Evana;elist,  speaks  also  of  another  John, 
called  the  Presbyter,  to  whom  some  ascribed  the 
Second  and  Third  Epistles,  under  the  name  of 
John.  And  we  have  already  seen,  that  Dyonisius 
of  Alexandria,  ascribe-i  the  Revelation  to  another 
John.  This  opinion,  we  learn  from  Jerome,  origi- 
nated in  the  fact,  that  two  monuments  were  found 
at  Ephesus,  each  inscribed  with  the  name,  John  ; 
but  he  says,  "  Somt;  think,  that  both  the  monu- 
ments are  of  John  the  Evangelist."  Then  be  pro- 
ceeds to  give    soire   account  of  the   Revelation  ; 


«7l 

^<Domitian,"  says  he  "  in  ihv  f<.ur)oentli  v'^a'-of  his 
rei^n,rai»iiigthe  second  pers'cu  ion  art*TNtro,.lohm 
w.is  biitiislitrd  iiitotrif  Isle  of  P:'tm(  s,\v  hrrc  Ip  ^vrote 
the  Rt  velation,  which  Justin  JM;trt}rand  Ircnaous 
explain." 

AuousTiNE  also  received  th('  Ijook  of  Revelation, 
and  quotes  it  very  frequently. 

He  ascribes  it  to  the  same  John,  who  wrote  the 
Gospel  and  the  Epist'es. 

From  the  view  which  has  been  taktn  of  the  tes- 
liinonies  in  favour  of  the  book  of  Revelation,  I 
think  it  must  appear  manifest  to  evrry  candid  read- 
er, that  few  hooks  in  the  New  Testament,  have 
mort'  C0'ij)lete  evidence  of  Canonical  authorit)', 
than  the  book  of  Revelation.  The  only  thing  which 
requires  ex[)laiiation  is,  tlie  oinission  of  this  book 
in  So  many  of  'ho  cataIoo;ues  of  the  Fathers,  and  of 
ancient  councils.  Owing  to  the  mysterious  nature 
of  the  contents  of  this  ho'.k,  and  to  the  abuse  of  its 
proph'  ci«.s.  by  the  tou  literal  construction  of  iheni, 
by  the  Milleitarians,  it  was  judged  expedient  not 
to  have  this  book  read  publicly  in  the  churches. 
Now  the  end  of  forming  these  catalogues  was,  to 
guide  the  people  in  reading  the  Scriptures  ;  and 
as  it  seems  not  to  liave  been  desired  that  the  peo- 
ple should  road  this  myst(ri>)us  book,  it  was  omit- 
ted by  many,  in  their  catalogues.  Still,  however, 
a  majority  of  tliem  have  it  ;  and  some,  wlio  onit- 
ted  it,  are  known  to  have  received  it  as  Canonical. 

This  aUo  will    account  for  the  fact,  that  many 


&72 

of  the  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  are 
without  (he  Kevflatiun  ;  so  that  iliere  are  extant 
couip^ratively  f i  w  copies  ol' this  book. 

But  the  authenticity  and  authority  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse stand  on  ground,  which  c^n  never  be  shaken; 
and  the  internal  evidence  is  strojig  in  favour  of  a 
divine  origin,  Th're  is  a  sublimity,  purity,  and 
consistency  in  it,  which  could  not  have  proceeded 
from  an  impostor.  In  addition  to  all  which,  we 
observe,  that  tl)e  fulfilnient  of  many  of  the  predic- 
tions of  this  book  is  ^o  remarkable,  that  to  many 
learned  men  who  have  attended  to  this  subject,  the 
evidence  from  this  source  alone,  is  demonstrative 
of  its  divine  origin.  And  there  is  every  reason 
to  believe,  that  in  the  revolution  of  events,  this 
book  which  is  now  to  many,  sealed  with  seven 
seals,  will  be  opened,  and  will  be  so  explamed, 
that  all  men  will  see  and  acknowledge,  that  it  is 
indeed  The  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
God  gave  unto  him,  to  show  xinto  his  servants, 
tilings  which  must  shortly  come  to  pass — and 
sent  and  signified  it  by  his  angel,  to  his  serv- 
ant John  ;  tvho  bare  record  of  the  word  of  God, 
and  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Alter  having  given  a  particular  account  of  the 
several  books  of  the  New  Testament,  it  may  be 
useful  to  subjoin  a  few  general  remarks  on  the  tes- 
timony exhibited. 

1.  The  writings  of  the  apostles,  from  the  time 

Rev.  i.  a,  2. 


273 


-of  their  first  publication,  were  distinguished  by  all 
Chnstia.is  from  all  other  bo<.ks.  They  were  spok- 
en of  by  the  Fathers  as  Scripture  ;  as  divine 
Scripture  ;    as    inspired    of  the     Lord  ;     as, 

GIVEN  BY  the    INSPIRATION  OP  THE  HoLY  GhoST. 

The  only  question  ever  agitated,  respecting  any  of 
these  books,  was,  whether  they  were  indeed,  the 
prociuctions  of  the  apostles.  When  this  was  clear, 
no  man  disputed  their  di\  ine  authority  ;  or  f.oa- 
sidered  it  lawlul  to  dissent  from  their  dictates. 
They  were  considered  as  occupying  the  same  place, 
in  reg;ird  to  inspiration  and  authority,  as  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  iii  imitation 
of  tliis  denomination,  they  were  called  the  New 
Tcftament,  The  other  names  by  which  they 
were  distinguished,  were  such  as  these,  the  Gos- 
i'El; — theApostles; — riit:  divinlGospels;  -the 

/\1VANG1CLICAL  INSTRUMENT  ; — THE  ScRIPTURES  OF 

THE  Lord; — Holy  ScKirruitEs; — Evangelic 
VOICE  ; — DIVINE  Scriptures  ; — Oracles  of  the 
Lord  ; — divine  fountains  ; — fountains  of  the 
divine  fulness. 

2.  These  bo  )ks  were  not  in  obs  "Urlty,  but  were 
•  cad  with  veneration  and  avidity,  by  multitudes. 
They  were  read  n.  t  only  by  tlie  learned,  but  by 
the  people;  not  only  in  private,  but  constantly 
in  the  pubhc  assemblies  of  Christians,  as  appears 
by  the  explii-it  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  Ter- 
tullian,  Kusebins,  Cy[)rian,  and  Augustine.  And 
no  other  books  were  thus  venerated  and  read.  If 
a  a 


274 

some  other  pieces  were  publicly  read,  yet  the 
Fathers  always  made  a  wide  distinction  between 
them  and  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

3.  In  all  th«  controversies  which  arose  in  the 
church,these  books  were  acknowledged  by  all  to  be 
decisive  authority,  unless  by  some  few  of  the  very 
worst  heretics,  who  mutilated  the  Scriptures,  and 
forged  others  for  themselves,  under  the  names  of 
the  apostles.  But  most  of  the  heretics  entleavour- 
cd  to  support  their  opinions,  by  an  appeal  to  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament.  The  Valenti- 
nians,  the  Montanists,  the  Sabelleians,  the  Arte- 
monists,  the  Arians,  received  the  Scriptures  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  same  was  the  case  with 
the  Priscillianists,  and  the  Pelagians.  In  the 
Arian  controversj^,  which  occupied  the  church 
so  long  and  so  earnestly,  the  Scriptures  were 
appealed  to  by  both  parties  ;  and  no  controversy 
arose,  respecting  the  authenticity  of  the  books,  of 
the  New  Testament. 

4.  The  avowed  enemies  of  Chiistianity,  who 
wrote  against  the  truth,  recognized  the  books  which 
are  now  in  the  Canon,  as  those  acknowledged  by 
Christians  in  their  times,  for  they  refer  to  the 
matters  contained  in  them,  and  some  of  them  men- 
tion several  books  by  name  ;  so  that  it  appears 
from  the  accounts  which  we  have  of  these  writings 
that  they  were  acquainted  with  the  volume  of  the 
New  Testament.  Celsus,  who  lived  and  wrote 
less  than  a  hundred  years  after  the  apostles,  says. 


275 

•9  is  testified  by  Origen  who  answererl  him,  "I 
coulxl  say  many  things  conceriiinsi;  the  aflf^iirs  of 
Jesus,  and  thuse  too,  diflVreni  from  what  is  wiilten 
by  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  but  I  purposely  omit 
them."  That  Celsus  here  refers  to  the  gospels, 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  In  another  place,  he  says, 
**  These  things  then, we  have  alleged  to  you,  out  of 
your  own  writings.^'  And  that  the  gospels  to 
which  he  referred,  were  the  same  as  those  which 
we  now  possess,  is  evident  from  his  references  to 
matters  contained  in  them. 

PoRPKYRV,  in  the  third  century,  wrote  largely, 
and  professedly,  against  the  Christian  Religion;  arxl 
although  his  work  has  shared  the  same  fate  as  that 
of  Celsus,  yet  from  some  fragments  which  have 
been  preserved,  we  can  ascertain,  that  he  was  well 
acquainted  with  the  four  gospels  ;  for  the  things  to 
which  he  objects,  are  still  contained  in  ihcm. 

But  the  emperor,  Juliav,  expressly  mentions 
Matthew  and  Luke  ;  and  cites  various  things  nut 
of  the  Gospels.  He  speaks  also  of  John,  and  al- 
leges, that  none  of  Christ's  disciples  beside,  ascrib- 
ed to  him  the  creation  of  the  world  ; — And  also, 
"That  neither  Paul,  nor  Matthew,  nor  Luke,  nor 
Mark,  have  dared  to  call  Jesus,  God  ;" — *'That 
John  wrote  later  than  the  other  Evangelists,  and 
at  a  time,  when  a  great  number  of  men  in  the 
cities  of  Greece  and  Italy  were  convened."  He 
alludes  to  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  and  Sergius 
Paulus  ;  to    Peter's  vision  ;    and   to  the  circular 


27e 

letter  sent  by  the  apostles,  at  Jerusalem,  to  the 
churches  ;  which  things  are  recorded  in  the  Acts  of 
the  n pestles.* 

Now,  if  the  g;enuineness  of  these  books  could 
have  been  impugned,  on  any  plausible  grounds; 
or  if  any  doubt  had  existed  respecting  this  matter? 
«ureiy  such  men  as  Celsus,  Porphyry,  and  Julian, 
could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  the  matter,  and 
would  not  have  failed  to  bring  forward  every  thing 
of  this  kind  which  they  knew  ;  for  their  hostility 
to  Christianity  was  unbounded.  And  it  is  certain, 
that  Porphyry  did  avail  himself  of  an  objection 
'of  this  kind,  in  regard  to  the  book  of  Daniel.  Since, 
then,  not  one  of  the  early  enemies  of  Christianity 
ever  suggested  a  doubt  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  we  may' rest  assured, 
that  no  ground  of  doubt  existed,  in  their  day  ;  and 
that  the  fact  of  these  being  the  genuine  writings  of 
the  men  whose  names  they  bear,  was  too  clearly 
established,  to  admit  any  doubt.  The  genuineness 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  having  been 
admitted  by  friends  and  enemies, — by  the  orthodox 
and  heretics,  in  those  ages,  when  the  fact  could  be 
ascertained  easily  ;  it  is  too  late  in  the  day,  now, 
for  infidels  to  call  this  matter  in  question. 

5.  But  the  testimony  which  we  possess,  is  not 
only  sufficient  to  prove,  that  the  books  of  the  Ne^^'' 
Testament  were  written  by  the  persons  whose 
names  they  bear  ;  but  also, that  these  books,  ia  the 

*  See  Lardner  and  Paley. 


277 

early  ages  of  the  church,  contained  the  same 
things  which  are  now  read  in  them.  Omitting 
any  particular  notice  of  ahont  half  a  dozen  passa- 
ges,the  genuineness  of  which  is  in  dispute,  I  would 
remark,  that  when  we  compare  the  numerous  and 
copious  quotations  from  these  books,  which  are 
found  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  with  our 
own  copies,  the  argument  is  most  satisfactory.  Ft 
is  true,  indeed,  that  the  Fathers  do  sometimes  ap- 
parently quote  from  memory  ;  and  in  that  case, 
the  words  of  the  sacred  writer  are  a  little  changed 
or  transposed,  but  the  sense  is  accurately  retained. 
In  general,  however,  the  quotations  of  Scripture, 
in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  are  verbally  exact : 
there  being  no  other  variation,  than  what  arises  from 
the  different  idiom  of  ihe  language  which  they 
use.  I  suppose,  that  almost  every  verse,  in  some 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  has  beeti  cited  by 
one  or  another  of  the  Fathers  ;  so  that  if  that  book 
were  lost,  it  might  be  restored,  by  means  of  the 
quotations  from  it  in  other  books. 

I3ut,  besides  these  quotations,  we  have  versions 
of  the  whole  New  Testament,  into  various  langua- 
ges, some  of  wliich  were  maae  very  early,  pro- 
bably, not  much  later  than  the  end  of  the  first,  or 
beginning  of  the  second  century.  Now,on  a  com- 
parison, all  these  versions  contain  the  same  dis- 
courses, parables,  miracN-s,  doctrines,  precepts, 
and  divine  institutions.  Indeed,  so  literal  have 
been  most  versions  of  the  New  Testament,  that 

A    A    9 


278 

they  answer  to  one  another,   and    to  the  original, 
ahiiost  word  for  word. 

Besides,    there   are  in  existence,    hundreds  and 
thousands  of  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 
which    were    written    in    diflerent  agos    of   the 
church,from  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,   until  the 
sixteenth.       Most    of    these    have    been     penned 
with  great  care,  and  in  the  finest  style  of  Calligra- 
phy.    The  oldest  are  written  on  beautiful  parch- 
ment, in  what  are  called  uncial,  or  capital  letters. 
Some  of  these  Manuscripts,    contain  all  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament ;  others  only  a  part  ;  and  in 
some  instances,  a  single  book.    Some  are  in  a  state 
of  good   preservation,  while  others  are   worn  and 
mutilated  ;  and   the   writing   so  obscure,  as  to  be 
scarcely  legible.     And   what  is  very  remarkable, 
some  copif  s  of  the  New  Testament  on  parchment, 
have  been  found    written    over   again  with    other 
matter,  after  the  original  words   had  been  as  fully 
obliterated  as  could  easily  be   done.     This  seems  a 
very  strange  practice,  considering  that  good  copies 
of  the  Bible  must  have   been  always  too  few;  but 
the  scarcity  of  parchment  was  so  great,  that  men 
who  were  anxious  to  communicate  their  own  lu- 
cubrations to   the  public,  would  resort  to  any  shift, 
to  procure  the  materials  for  writing.     And  this  is 
not  more  culpable  or  more  wonderful,  tiian   what 
has  been   known   to   take   place  in  our  own  land 
and  times,  where  the  leaves  of  Walton's  Polyglot 


279 

Bible,  have  been  torn   and  used  lor  wrapping  pa- 
])er. 

The  exact  age  of  the  oldest  MSS.  of  the  Neu 
Testament  Ciinnot  be  accurately  ascertained,  as 
they  have  no  d  ites  accompanying  them  which  can 
.safely  be  depended  on  :  but  as  iJ  is  pretty  well 
known  at  what  period  Greek  accents  were  intro- 
duced ;  and  also,  whon  the  large  or  uncial  letter, 
as  it  is  called,  was  exchanged  for  the  small  letter 
now  in  common  use;  if  a  MS.  is  found  written 
in  the  old  fashion,  in  large  letters,  without  inter- 
vals between  the  words,  and  without  accents,  it  is 
known  that  it  must  be  more  ancient  than  the  pe- 
riod when  the  i  mode  of  writing  was  changed. 
Now,  it  is  manifest,  that  when  these  MSS.  were 
penned,  the  Canon  was  settled  by  common  consent; 
for  thoy  all  contain  the  same  books,  as  far  as  they 

go- 

I  will  sum  up  my  observations  on  the  Canon,  ot 
the  New  Testament,  by  quoting  a  sensible  and 
very  appropriate  passage,  from  the  late  learned  Mr. 
Rknnell.  It  is  found,  in  his  Remarks  on  Hone's 
Collection  of  the  Apocryphal  writings  of  the  apos- 
tolic  age. 

*'  frjien,  was  the  Canon  of  Scripture  deter- 
mined. It  was  determined  immediately  after 
the  death  ,of  St.  John,  the  last  survivor  of  the 
Apostolic  order.  The  canon  of  the  Gospels  was 
indeed  determined  before  his  death,  for  we  read 
in  Ensebius,  that  he  gave  his  sanction  to  the  three 


280 

other  Gospels,  and  completed  this  part  of  the  New- 
Testament  with  his  own.  By  the  death  of  St. 
John  the  cataloecue  of  Scripture  was  completed  and 
closed.  We  have  seen  both  from  the  testimony 
of  themselves  and  of  their  immediate  successors, 
that  the  inspiration  of  writing  was  confined  strictly 
to  the  apostles,  and  accordinsjly  we  find,  that  no 
similar  pretensions  were  ever  made  by  any  true 
christian  to  a  similar  authority. 

^'  By  whom  was  the  Canon  of  Scripture  deter- 
mined ?  It  was  determined  not  by  the  decision  of 
any  individual,  nor  by  the  decree  of  any  council, 
but  by  the  general  consent  of  the  whole  and  every 
part  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  indeed  a  re- 
markable circumstance,  that  among  the  various  dis- 
putes which  so  early  agitated  the  church,  the  Can-  ■ 
on  of  Scripture  was  never  a  subject  of  controversy. 
If  any  question  might  be  said  to  have  arisen,  it 
was  in  reference  to  one  or  two  of  those  books  which 
are  included  in  the  present  canan  ;  but  with  respect 
to  those  which  are  out  of  the  Canon,  no  difference 
of  opinion  ever  existed. 

"  The  reason  of  this  agreement  is  a  very  satisfac- 
tory one.  Every  one  who  is  at  all  versed  in  Ec- 
clesiastical History  is  aware  of  the  continual  inter- 
course* which  took  place  in  the  Apostolical  age  be- 
tween the  various  branches  of  the  church  univer- 
sal. This  communication,  as  Mr.  Nolan  has  well 
ohserved,  arose  out  of  the  Jewish  polity,  under 


which,  various  synacjosjiies  of  the  Jews  whioh  were 
dispersed  throu2;iiout  the  Gentile  W)rl(l,  were  all 
subjected  to  the  Sanhedrim  at  Jerusalem,  and  main- 
tained a  constant  correspondence  with  it.  When- 
ever then  an  episiie  arrived  at  any  particular  church, 
it  was  first  authenticated  ;  it  was  then  read  to  aU 
the  holy  brethren,  and  was  subsequently  transmit- 
ted to-some  other  neighbouring  church.  Thus  we 
find  that  the  authentication  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
was,  ^'  The  salutation  with  his  own  hnnd,"  by 
which  the  church  to  which  the  Epistle  was  first  ad- 
dressed, might  be  assured  that  it  was  not  a  forgery. 
We  find  also  a  S)lemn  adjuratiijn  of  the  same  apos- 
tle, that  his  Epistle,  'should  be  read  to  all  tlic  holy 
brethren.*  'When  this  Epistle  is  read  among  you, 
cause  that  it  be  read  ;dso  in  the  church  of  the  Lao- 
diceans,  and  that  ye  likewise  read  the  Epistle  from 
Laidicea.*  From  this  latter  pissage  we  infer,  that 
the  system  of  transmission  was  a  vory  general  one, 
as  the  Epistle  whicli  St.  Paul  directs  the  Oolossi.ms 
to  receive  from  the  Laodiceans  was  not  origi'ially 
directed  to  the  I  itter,  but  was  sent  to  them  from 
some  other  chuich.  To  prevent  any  mi'stake  or 
fraud,  this  trans  nission  was  made  by  the  higiicst 
authority,  nnnely  by  ihat  of  the  bishop.  Through 
him,  oflicinl  co.oTiunicalioiis  were  sont  from  one 
church  toaiio'iier,  eveo  in  the  re  notest  couniries, 
Clemi.nl,  the  bishop  6f  Ro:iio,  convmuiiiculed  with 

2  Thes.  iii.  17,  1  Thes.  v.  27.  Col.  is*.  6. 


282 

the  church  at  Corinth  ;  Poly  carp,  the  bishop  of 
Smj'rna,  wrote  an  Epistle  to  the  Philippians ;  Ig- 
natius, the  bishop  of  Antioch,  corresponded  with 
the  churches  of  Rome,  of  Magnesia,  of  Ephesits, 
and  others.  These  three  bishops  were  the  com- 
panions and  immediate  successors  of  the  apostles, 
and  followed  the  system  of  correspondence  and  in- 
tercourse which  their  masters  had  begun.-  Con- 
sidering all  these  circumstances,  we  shall  be  con- 
vinced how  utterly  improbable  it  was,  that  any 
authentic  work  of  an  apostle  should  have  existed 
in  one  church,  without  being  communicated  to 
another.  It  is  a  very  mistaken  notion  of  Dod- 
well,  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  lay 
concealed  in  the  cofters  of  particular  churches, 
and  were  not  known  to  the  rest  of  the  world  until 
the  late  days  of  Trajan.  This  might  have  been 
perfectly  true,  with  respect  to  the  originals,  which 
were  doubtless,  guarded  with  peculiar  care,  in  the 
custody  of  the  particular  churches,  to  which  they 
were  respectively  addressed.  But  copies  of  these 
originals,  attested  by  the  authority  of  the  bishop, 
were  transmitted  from  one  churcii  to  another,  with 
the  utmost  freedom,  and  were  tlius  rapidiy  dispers- 
ed throughout  the  Christian  world.  As  a  proof 
of  this,  St.  P'ter,  in  an  Epistle  addressed  gener- 
ally to  the  churches  in  Asia,  speaks  of  ''  All  the 
Epistles  of  Paul,"  as  a  body  of  Scripture  univer- 
sally ciri^ulated  and  known. 

"The  number  of  the  apostles,    including  Paul 


2S3 


ami  Barnabas  was  but  fourteen — to  these,  and  these 
aloiu',  ill  the  opinion  of  the  early  church,  was  the 
inspiration  of  writing  coiifinecl,  out  of  these,  six 
only  deemed  it  necessary  to  write;  what  they  did 
write,  was  authenticated  with  the  greatest  caution, 
and  circulated  with  the  utmost  rapidity  ;  what  was 
received  in  any  church  as  the  writing  of  an  apos- 
tle, was  pul)licly  read  ;  no  church  was  lef?  to  itself, 
or  to  its  own  direction  ;  but  was  frequently  visited 
by  the  apostles,  and  corresponded  with  by  their 
successors.  All  the  distant  members  of  the  church 
universal,  in  the  apostles'  age,  being  united  by  fre- 
quent intercourse,  and  cf)mmunication,  became  one 
body  in  Christ.  Taking  all  these  things  into  con- 
sideration, we  shall  see  with  what  ease  and  ra- 
pidity the  Canon  of  Scripture  would  be  formed, 
there  being  no  room  cither  for  fraudulent  fabrica- 
tion on  the  one  hand,  or  for  arbitnify  rejection 
on  the  other.  The  case  was  too  clear  to  require 
any  formal  discussion,  nor  does  it  appear  that  tliere 
was  any  material  forgery,  that  could  render  it  ne- 
cessary. 

The  writings  of  the  apostles,  and  of  the  apostles 
alone,  were  received  as  the  word  of  God,  and  were 
separated  from  all  others,  by  that  most  decisive 
species  of  authority,  the  authority  of  a  general, 
an  immediate,  and  an   undisputed  consent. 

This  will  appear  the  more  satisfictory  to  our 
minds,  if  we  take  an  example  frbm  the  age  in  which 
we  live.     The  letters  of  Junius  tor  instance,  were 


284 

published  at  intervals  within  a  certain  peHod. 
Since  the  pubiication  of  the  last  aui  hen  tic  letter, 
many  under  that  signature  have  appeared,  purport- 
ing to  have  been  written  by  the  same  author. 
But  this  circumstance  throws  no  obscuritj'  over  the 
matter,  nor  is  the  Canon  of  Junius,  if  I  may  trans- 
fer the  term  from  sacreo  to  secular  writing,  invol- 
ved in  any  difficulty  or  doubt.  If  it  should  be 
hereafter  inquired,  at  what  time,  or  by  what  au- 
thority the  authentic  letters  were  separated  from 
the  spurious,  tiie  answer  will  be,  that  such  a  sepa- 
ration never  took  place  ;  but  that  the  Canon  of  Ju- 
nius was  immediately  tleiermined  after  the  last 
letter.  To  us  who  live  so  near  the  time  of  publi- 
cation, tlie  line  of  distinction  between  the  genuine 
and  spurious  is  so  strongly  marked,  and  the  evi- 
dence of  authenticity  on  the  one  side,  and  of  for- 
gery on  the  ©ther,  is  so  clear  and  convincing,  that 
a  formal  rejection  of  the  latter,  is  unnecesary,  I'he 
case  has  long  since  been  determined  by  the  tacit 
consent  of  the  whole  British  nation,  and  no  man 
in  his  senses  would  attempt  to  dispute  it. 

'*  Yet  how  much  stronger  is  the  case  of  the  Scrip- 
tural Canon.  Tlie  author  of  Junius  was  known  to 
noi-e,  he  could  not  therefore  of  himself  bear  any 
testimony  to  the  authenticity  of  his  works  ;  the 
audiersof  the  New  Testament  were  knuwn  to  all, 
and  were  especially  carelul  to  mark,  to  authenticate, 
and  to  (iislms:"ish  their  wri'ings.  I'he  author  of 
Junius  had  no  personal  character  which  could  stamp 


283 


his  writiiifi;  with  any  hisjh  or  special  authority  ; 
whatever  proceed  tl  from  tlie  apostles  of  Christ,  \va^ 
immediately  rea;arded  as  the  ofTsprinoj  of  an  exchi- 
sive  inspiration.  For  the  Canon  of  Junius  we  have 
no  external  evidence,  but  that  of  a  single  publisher  J 
lor  the  Canon  of  Scripture  we  have  the  testimony 
of  churches  which  were  visited,  bishops  wlio  were 
appointed,  and  converts  innumerable,  who  were  in- 
structed by  the  apostles  themselves.  It  was  nei- 
ther the  duty  nor  the  interest  of  any  one,  excepting 
the  publisher,  to  preserve  the  volume  of  Junius 
from  spurious  editions:  to  2;uard  the  integrity  of  the 
sacred  volume  was  the  buunden  duty  of  every 
Christian  who  believed  that  iis  words  were  tlie 
words  of  eternal  life. 

"  If  then,  nolwiihstanding  these  and  other  dif- 
ficulties, wliicli  might  be  adduced,  the  Canon  of 
Junius,  is  established  beyond  controversy  or 
dispute,  by  ihe  tacit  consent  of  all  who  live  in  the 
age  in  whicii  it  was  written  ;  there  can  be  no 
reason  why  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  under  circum- 
stances infinitely  sir mger,  should  not  have  be  m 
determined  in  a  manner  precisely  the  same  ;  es- 
pecially when  we  remember,  that  in  both  case's, 
t!ui  forgciit  s  made  their  apj)earance,  subsequently 
to  the  determinati  >n  of  the  Canon.  There  is  lot 
a  single  b')(dc  in  ilic  spurinus  department  of  tjie 
Apocryphal  v  du  iie  which  was  even  known,  when 
thi^  Canxij  of  Scipure  was  determine  I.  !"his 
is  a  fact  which  consider  ibly  strengthens  the  case. 
B   u 


28G 

fl'here  was  no  difficulty  or  dispute  in  li-aming  the 
Canon  of  Scripture,  because  there  were  no  compe- 
titors, whose  claims  it  was  expedient  to  examine, 
no  forgeries  whose  impostures  it  was  necessary  to 
detect.  The  first  age  of  the  church,  was  an  age 
of  too  much  vigilance,  of  too  much  communication, 
of  too  much  authority  for  any  fabrication  of  Scrip- 
ture, to  hope  for  success.  If  any  attempt  was 
made  it  was  instantly  crushed.  When  the  autho- 
rity of  the  apostles  and  of  apostolic  men  had  lost 
its  influence,  and  heresies  and  disputes  had  arisen, 
then  it  was  that  forgeries  began  to  appear  .  .  . 
Nothing,  indeed,  but  the  general  and  long  deter- 
mined consent  of  the  whole  Christian  world,  could 
have  preserved  the  sacred  volume  in  its  integrity, 
unimpaired  by  the  mutilation  of  one  set  of  ht-retic?, 
and  unincumbered  by  the  forgeries  of  another.'' 


Xi>/. 


SEOTIOU      Xlll. 

VO   CANONICAL  BOOK    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT 
HAS  BEEN  LOST. 

This  was  a  subject  of  warm  dispute  brtwoin  the 
Romanists  and  Protestants,  af  the  time  of  the  Re- 
formation. The  former,  to  make  room  for  their 
farriffo  of  unwritten  traditions,  maintamed  the  af- 
firmative ;  and  such  men  as  BoUarmine  anfl  Pineda 
asserted  roundly,  that  some  of  the  most  valuable 
parts  of  the  Canonical  Scriptures  were  lost.  The 
Protestants,  on  the  other  hand,  to  support  the  suf- 
ficiency and  perfection  of  the  Holy  Scriptures;  the 
corner  stone  of  the  Reformation,  strenuously  and 
successfully  contended,  that  no  part  of  the  Canoni- 
cal volume  had  been  lost. 

But  the  opinion  that  some  inspired  books,  which 
once  belonged  to  the  Canon,  have  been  lost,  has 
been  maintained  by  some  more  respectable  writers, 
than  those  Romanists  just  mentioned.  Chrysostom, 
Thcophylact,  Calvin,  and  Whitaker,  have  all,  in 
some  degree,  countenanced  the  same  opinion,  in 
order  to  avoid  some  difficulty,  or  to  answer  some 
particular  purpose.  The  subj'ct,  so  far  as  the  Old 
Tehtament  is  concerned,  has  already  been  consider- 
ed ;    it  shall  now  be  our  endeavour  to  show,  that 


.^^^»    i^s 


288 


no  Canonical  book  of  ihe  New  Testament  has  been 
lost. 

And  here,  I  am  ready  to  concede,  as  was  before 
done,  that  there  may  have  been  books  written  by 
inspired  men,  that  have  been  lost:  for  inspiration 
was  occasional,  not  constant ;  and  confined  to  mat- 
ters of  faith,  and  not  afforded  on  the  affairs  of  this 
life  ;  or  in  matters  of  mere  science.  If  Paul,  or 
Peter,  or  any  other  Apostle,  had  occasion  to  write 
private  letters  to  their  friends,  on  subjects  not  con- 
nected with  religion,  there  is  no  reason  to  think, 
Ihatthese  were  inspired;  and  if  such  writings  have 
been  lost,  the  Canon  of  Scripture  has  suffered  no 
more,  by  this  means,  than  by  the  loss  of  any  other 
uninspired  books. 

But  again,  I  am  willing  to  go  farther,  and  say, 
that  it  is  possible,  (although  I  know  no  evidence 
of  the  fact,)  that  some  things,  written  under  the  in- 
fluence of  inspiration,  for  a  particular  occasion, 
and  to  rectify  some  disorder  in  a  particular  church, 
may  have  been  lost,  without  injury  to  the  Canon. 
For,  as  much  that  the  apostles  preached  by  inspira- 
tion, is  undoubtedly  lost ;  so  there  is  no  reason 
why  every  word  which  they  wrote  must  necessa- 
rily be  preserved,  and  form  a  part  of  the  Canonical 
volume.  For  example,  suppose  that  when  Paul 
said,  1  Cor.  v.  9.  Iivrote  to  you  in  an  Epistle  not 
to  company  with  fornicators,  he  referred  to  aa 
Epistle  which  he  had  written  to  the  Corinthians, 
before  the  one  now  called,  the  Fjrst.  it  might  never 


289 

have  been  iniondctl  that  this  letter  should  I'orm  a 
conslituentpiti'i  of  the  Canon:  for  although  it  treat- 
ed of  subjects  connected  with  Christian  faitli  or 
practice;  yet,  an  occasion  having  arisen,  in  a  short 
time,  of  treating  these  subjects  more  at  large,  every 
thingin  thatEpistle, (supposing  it  ever  to  have  been 
written,)  may  have  been  included  in  the  two  f'pis- 
lles  to  the  Corinthians,  which  are  now  in  the  Ca- 
non. Or,  to  adopt  for  illustration,  the  ingenious 
hypothesis  of  Dr.  Lightfoot;  the  Epistle  referred 
to,  wliich  was  sent  by  Timothy,  who  took  a  cir- 
cuitous route  tlirough  Macedonia,  might  not  have 
reached  them,  until  Paul  wrote  the  long  and  inte- 
resting Epistle,  called,  the  First  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans; and  thus  the  former  one  would  be  superseded. 
But  we  adduce  this  case,  merely  for  illustration; 
for  we  will  attempt,  presently,  to  show,  that  no 
evidence  exists,  that  any  such  Epistle  was  ever 
written. 

1.  The  first  argument  to  prove  thai  no  Canonical 
book  has  been  lost,  is  derived  from  the  watchful 
care  of  Providence,  over  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

Now  to  suppose  that  a  book  written  by  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Holy  S|)irit,  and  intended  1 6  form 
a  part  of  the  Canon,  which  is  the  rule  of  faith  to 
the  church,  should  be  utterly  and  irrecovojably 
lost,  is  surely  not  very  honourable  to  the  wisdom 
of  God;  and  no  how  consonant  witli  the  ordinary 
method  of  his  dispensations,  in  regard  to  his  pre- 
cious truth.  There  is  good  reason  to  think,  that 
B  3   2 


290 

if  God  saw  it  needful,  and  for  the  edification  of  tite 
church,  that  such  books  should  be  written,  un.Ier 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  his  provi- 
dence he  would  have  taken  care  to  preserve  rhem 
from  destruction.  We  do  know,  that  this  treasure 
of  divine  truth  has  been,  in  all  ao;es,  and  in  the 
worst  times,  the  special  care  of  God,  or  not  one 
gf  I  he  sacred  books  would  now  be  in  existence. 
And  if  one  Canonical  book  might  be  lost  through 
the  negligence  or  unfaithfulness  of  men,  why  not 
all?  And  thus  the  end  of  God  in  making  a  revela- 
tion of  his  will,  might  have  been  defeated. 

But  whatever  other  corruptions  have  crept  into 
the  Jewish  or  Christian  cliurches,  it  does  not  ap- 
pear, that  eitrier  of  them  as  a  body,  ever  incurred 
the  censure  of  having  been  careless  in  preserving  the 
Oracles  of  God.  Our  Saviour  never  charges  the 
Jews,  who  perverted  the  Sacred  Scriptures  to  their 
own  ruin,  wiili  having  lost  any  portion  of  the  sa- 
cred deposit,  intruited  to  them. 

History  informs  us  of  the  fierce  and  malignant 
design  ofAiitiochusEpiphanes,to  abolish  every  ves- 
tige of  the  sacred  volume  ;  but  the  same  history 
assures  us,  that  the  Jewish  people  manifested  a  lie- 
roic  fortitude,  and  invincible  patience,  in  resist- 
ing and  defeating  his  impious  purpose.  They 
chose  rather  to  sacrifice  their  lives,  and  suffer  a 
cruel  death,  than  to  deliver  up  the  copies  of  the 
Sacred  volume,  in  their  possession.  And  the  same 
f'pirit  ^Yas  manifested,  and  with  the  same  result,  in 


291 

the  Dioclcsian  persecution  of  the  Christians.  Every 
effort  was  made  to  obliterate  the  sacred  writings 
of  C'liiislians,  and  iniiJlitudes  suffered  death  for  re' 
lusiiig  to  di.  liver  up  the  New  Ti-staiueiit.  Some, 
indeed,  overcome  by  the  terrors  of  a  ciuel  perse- 
cution,did, in  the  hour  of  temptation, consent  to  sur- 
render the  h  tly  book;  but  ih  y  were  ever  ufter- 
wards  called  traitors;  and  it  was  with  tlie  utmost 
difliculty,  that  any  of  them  could  be  received  again, 
into  the  communion  of  th(;  ciiuroli  ;  after  a  long 
repentance,  and  the  most  humbling  confessions  of 
their  fault.  Now,  if  any  Canonical  book  was  ever 
lost,  it  must  have  been  in  these  early  limes,  when 
the  word  of  God  was  valued  far  above  life,  and 
when  every  Christian  stood  ready  to  seal  the  truth 
with  his  blood. 

2.  Ano-iher  argument,  which  appears  to  me  to 
be  convincing,  is,  tiiat  in  a  little  time,  all  the  sa- 
cred books  were  dispersed  ovir  the  whole  world. 
If  a  book  had,  by  some  accident  or  violence,  been 
destroyed  in  one  region,  the  loss  coold  soon  have 
been  repaired,  by  sending  for  copies  to  other  coun- 
tries. 

The  consideratiojis  just  mentioned,  would,  I 
presume,  be  satisfactory  to  all  candid  minds,  were 
it  not,  that  it  is  supposed,  that  there  is  evidence 
tliat  some  things  were  written  by  the  Aj)ostles, 
which  are  not  now  in  the  Canon.  We  have  al- 
ready referred  to  an  Ejiistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
which  Paul  is  supposed  to  have  written  to  themj 


292 

previously  to  the  writing  of  those  which  we  now 
possess.  But  it  is  by  no  means  certain,  or  even 
probable,  that  Paul  ever  did  write  such  an  Epistle: 
for  not  one  ancient  writer  makes  the  least  mention 
of  any  such  letter;  nor  is  there  any  where  to  be 
found  any  citation  from  it,  or  any  reference  to  it. 

It  is  a  matter  of  testimony,  in  which  all  the  Fa- 
thers concur,  as  with  one  voice,  that  Paul  wrote  no 
more  than  fourteen  Epistles,  all  of  which  we  now 
have. 

The  testimony  of  Clement  of  Rome,  is  clear  on 
this  subject;  and  he  was  the  friend  and  companion 
of  Paul,  and  must  have  known  which  was  the  First 
Epistle  addressed  by  him  to  the  Corinthian  church. 
He  saj's,  in  a  passage  before  cited,  "Take  again 
the  Epistle  of  the  blessed  Apostle  Paul  into  your 
hands.  What  was  it  that  he  first  wrote  to  you, 
in  the  beginning  of  his  Epistle  ?  He  did  truly  by 
the  Spirit  write  to  you  concerning  himself,  and 
Cephas,  and  Apollos,  because  even  at  that  time, 
you  were  formed  into  divisions  or  parties.'* 

The  only  objection  which  can  be  conceived  to 
this  testimony,  is,  that  Clement's  words,  when 
literally  translated,  read,  <'Take  again  the  Gospel 
(EuayyeXi's)  of  the  blessed  apostle  Paul  ;"  but  it  is 
well  known,  that  the  early  Fathers  called  any 
book,  containing  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  the  Gos- 
pel ;  and  in  this  case,  all  reasonable  doubt  is  pre- 
cluded, because  Clement  identifies  the  writing,  to 
which  he  referred,  by  mentionmg  some  of  its  con- 


S93 

lenfs,  which  aie  found  in   the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Ct'riniiii;ii.s,  ami    novvhtTi-  else. 

But  SI  ill,  Paul's  own  <leclaralion,  stands  in  the 
way  of  our  opinion,  /  ivrote  to  you  in  an  Epis- 
tle ;  'the  words  m  the  oriajinal  are,  'E7^a4'a  l\tA\  iv 
'rr)  ^•jri?&X^,' thf-  literal  version  of  which  is,  I  have 
written  to  you  in  i/ic  Epistle,  or,  in  this  Epistle; 
that  is,  in  the  former  part  of  it ;  where,  in  fact, 
wc  find  the  very  thing  xrhirh  he  says,  that  he  had 
\\Tiitcn.  See  v.  2.  5,  6,  of  this  same  5th  cliap- 
tcr.  But  it  is  thought  by  learned  and  judicious 
commentators,  that  the  v  ords  following,  Ni/vi  (5? 
iy^a-l^a  i^Tv,  but  now  I  have  ivritten  unto  you, 
require,  that  we  should  understand  the  former 
clause,  as  relating  to  some  former  time  ;  but  a 
careful  attention  to  tlu  context  will  convince  us, 
that  this  reference  is  bv  no  means  necessary. 
The  apostle  had  told  them,  in  the  beginning  of 
tie  chapter,  to  avoid  the  company  of  fornicators, 
&c.  ;  but  it  is  manifest,  from  the  10th  verse,  that 
he  appreliended  that  his  meaning  might  be  misun- 
derstood, by  extending  the  prohibitir.n  too  f;(r,  so 
as  to  decline  all  intercourse  with  the  world,  there- 
fore he  repeats  what  he  had  said,  and  informs 
them,  that  it  had  relation  only  to  th-  pr'.f'ssors  of 
Christianity,  who  should  be  guilty  of  siicfi  vices. 
The  whole  may  be  thus  paraptirased,  '•  1  wrote  to 
you  above,  in  my  letter,  th:it  >  "u  stiould  separate 
Irom  those  who    were  fornic.ttors  ;  and    that   you 

.1   Cor.  V.  ^,  W. 


294 

should  purge  them  out  as  old  leaven  ;  but  fearing 
lest  you  should  misapprehend  my  meaning,  b%  in- 
ferring that  I  have  directeil  you  to  avoid  all  inter- 
course with  the  heathen  around  you,  who  are  ad- 
dicted to  these  shameful  vices,  which  would  make 
it  necessary  that  you  should  go  out  of  the  world, 
I  now  inform  you,  that  my  meaning  is,  that  you 
do  not  associate  familiarly  with  any  who  make  a 
profession  of  Christianity,  and  yet  continue  in  these 
evil  practices." 

In  confirmation  of  this  interpretation,  we  can 
adduce  the  Old  Syriac  Version,  which  having  been 
made  soon  after  the  days  of  the  apostles,  is  good 
testimony,  in  relation  to  this  matter  of  fact.  In 
this  venerable  version,  the  meaning  of  the  ilth 
verse,  is  thus  given,  "  This  is  what  I  have  written 
unto  you,"  or,  "The  meaning  of  what  I  have  writ^- 
ten  unto  you."* 

Dr.  Whitby  understands  this  passage,  in  a  way 
different  from  any  that  lias  been  mentioned  ;  the 
reader  is  referred  to  his  commentary,  on  the 
place. 

And  we  have  before  mentioned  the  ingenious 
conjecture  of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  to  which  there  is  no 
objection,  except,  that  it  is  totally  unsupported  by 
evidence. 

It  deserves  to  be  mentioned  here,  that  there  is 
now  extant,  a  Letter  from  Paul  to  the  Corinthians, 
distinct  from  those  Epistles  of  his,  which  we  havi 

*  See  Jones  on  the  Canon,  Vol.  i.  p.  139,  140. 


295 

(n  the  Canon  ;  and  also  an  Epistle  from  the  cliurch 
ol  Corinth,  to  Paul.  These  Epistles  are  in  the 
Armenian  lano;uag;e,  but  have  bucn  translated  into 
Latin.  Tlic  Epistle  ascribed  to  Paul  is  very 
short,  and  undoubtedly  spurious.  It  contains  no 
prohibitions,  relative  to  keeping  company  with 
fornicators.  It  was  never  cited  by  any  of  the 
early  writers  ;  nor  indeed  heard  of,  until  within 
a  century  past.  It  contains  some  unsound  opin- 
ions, concernino;  the  speedy  appearance  of  Christ, 
which  Paul,  in  some  of  his  Epistles,  took  pains  to 
contradict. 

The  manner  of  salutation,  is  very  diflprent  from 
that  of  Paul ;  and  this  apostle  is  made  to  declare 
that  he  had  received  what  he  taught  them,  from 
the  former  apostles,  which  is  contrary  to  his  re- 
peated solemn  asseveration,  in  several  of  his  Epis- 
tles. 

In  regard  to  the  Epistle  under  the  name  of 
the  Church  of  Corinth,  it  dors  not  properly  fall 
under  our  consideration,  for  if  it  was  genuine,  it 
would  have  no  claim  to  a  place  in  the  Canon. 

The  curious  reader,  will  find  a  literal  translation 
»f  both  these  Epistles,  in  Jones's  New  metho  I  of 
settling  the  Canon.* 

The  only  other  passage  in  the  New  Testament, 
which  has  been  thought  to  refer  to  an  Epistle  of 
Paul,    not    now  extant,    is   that    in    Col.   iv.    16. 

*  Vol.  i.  p.  14. 


296 

And  luhen  this  Epistle  is  read  among  yoic^ 
cause  also  that  it  be  read  in  the  church  of  th^ 
Laodiceans,  and  that  ye  likewise  read  the  Epis- 
tle from  Laodicea. 

Now,  there  is  clear  evidence,  that  so  early  as 
the  beginning  of  the  second  century, there  existed  an 
Epistle,  under  this  title  ;  but  it  was  not  received 
by  the  church,  but  was  in  the  hands  of  Marcion, 
who  was  a  famous  forger  and  corrupter  of  Sacred 
books.  He  was  contemporary  with  Polycarp,  and 
therefore  very  near  to  the  times  of  the  apostles, 
but  he  was  stigmatized  as  an  enemy  of  the  truth  ; 
for  he  had  the  audacity  to  form  a  Gospel,  accordmg 
to  his  own  mind,  which  went  by  his  name  ;  and 
also  an  Apostolicon,  which  contained  only  ten  of 
Paul's  Epistles  ,  and  these  altered  and  accommo- 
dated to  his  own  notions.  These,  according  to 
Epiphanius,  were,  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatiansy 
the  two  to  the  Corinthians,  to  the  Romans,  the 
two  to  the  Thessalonians,  to  the  Colossians,  to 
Philemon,  and  to  the  Philippians. — And,  says 
he,  "  He  takes  in,  some  part  of  that  whii-h  is 
called,  THE  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans,  and 
this  he  styles,  the  eleventh,  of  those  received  by 
Marcion." 

Tertullian,  however,  gives  a  very  different  ac" 
count  of  this  matter.  He  asserts,  "  That  Mar- 
cion and  hi*  fi.'llotvers,  called  that  the  Epistle  to 
the  Laodiceans,  which  was  the  Epi-.tle  to  the 
Ephesians:  <whichEpistle,'  says  he, 'we  are  assured 


297 

by  the  testimony  of  tlie  church,  was  sent  to  the 
Ephosians,  and  not  to  the  Laoilicvais  ;  though. 
Marcion  has  taken  upon  him,  falsely,  to  prefix 
that  title  to  it,  pretending  therein,  to  have  made 
some  notable  discovery."  And,  again,  "I  sliall 
^ay  nothing  now  of  that  other  Epistle,  which  we 
have  inscribed  to  tlie  Ephesians  ;  but  the  heretics 
entitle  it,  to  the  Laodiceans." 

Tliis  opinion,  vvhicli  by  TertuUian  is  ascribed 
10  ^Marcion,  respecting  the  true  title  of  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Ephesians,  lias  been  adopted,  and  inge- 
niously defended,  by  several  disiiiiguished  mod- 
erns, as  Grotius,  Hammond,  Whitby,  and  Paley. 
They  rely  principally  on  internal  evidence  ; 'for 
unless  jMarcion  be  accepted  as  a  witness,  I  cio  not 
recollect  that  any  of  liie  early  writer-^  can  be  quot- 
ed in  favour  of  thai  opinion  ;  but  in  the  course 
of  this  work,  we  have  put  down  ihe  express  tes- 
timony of  some  of  tlie  most  respectable  anil  learn- 
ed of  tlie  Fathers,  on  the  other  side  ;  and  all  .hose 
passages  in  the  Epistle,  which  seem  inconsistent 
wiih  its  being  addressed  to  the  Ephesians,  and 
neighbouring  churches  of  Asia,  can  easily  be  ex- 
plained.     See  Lardner  and  Macknight. 

iiut  there  is  also  an  Episti.e  to  the  La)DI- 
CEANs,  now  extant,  againsi  which  nothing  can  be 
said,  except  that  almost  every  thing  contained  ia 
if,  is  taken  out  of  Paul's  othet  EpisHi-s,  so  that  if 
it  should  be  received,  we  add  nothing  in  reality 
to  the  Canon  ;  and  if  it  should  be  rt-jucied,  we 
c   c 


298 

lose  nothing.  The  reader  may  find  a  translation  of 
this  Epistle,  inserted  in  the  notes  at  the  end  of  the 
volume. 

But  what  evidence  is  there,  that  Paul  ever 
wrote  an  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans  ?  The  text 
on  which  this  opinion  has  been  founded,  in  ancient 
and  modern  tinies,  correctly  interpreted,  has  no 
such  import.  The  words  in  the  original  are,  xcd 
vi\v  sx  AaoSixsTas  iva  -xaT  ifhsTg  dvayvt^s,  j9nd  that  ye 
likewise  read  the  Epistle  from  Laodicea.  These 
words  have  been  differently  understood;  for  by 
them  some  understand,  that  an  Epistle  had  been 
written  by  Paul  to  the  Laodiceans,  which  he  de- 
sired might  be  read  in  the  church  at  Co.'osse. 
Chrysostom  seems  to  have  understood  them  thus  : 
and  the  Romish  writers,  almost  universally,  have 
adopted  this  opinion.  "  Therefore,"  says  Bellar- 
mine,  "it  is  certain  that  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  La- 
odiceans is  now  lost."  And  their  opinion  is  fa- 
voured by  the  Latin  Vulgate,  where  we  read, 
Eamque  Laodicensium  ;  that  lohich  is  of  the 
Laodiceans  ;  but,  even  these  words  admit  of  on- 
olher  construction. 

Many  learned  Protestants,  als(i,  have  embraced 
the  same  interpretation  ;  while  others  suppose, 
that  Paul  here  refers  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  which  they  think  he  sent  to  the  Laodiceans  ; 
and  that  the  present  inscijption  is  spurious. 

Col.  iv.  IG. 


299 

But  that  neither  of  these  opinions  is  correct, 
inay  be  rendered  very  probable.  In  repjard  to  the 
'alter,  we  have  already  said  as  much  as  is  necessa- 
ry ;  and  that  Paul  could  not  intend  by  the  lan- 
gUMoje  used  in  the  pass;iu;e  under  consideration,  an 
Epistle  written  by  himself,  will  appear  by  the  fol- 
lowing; argiinients. 

1.  Paul  could  not  with  any  propriety  of  speech, 
have  called  an  Epistle  written  by  himself,  and 
sent  to  the  Laodiceans,  an  E|)istle  from  Laodi- 
cea.  He  certainly  would  have  said,  <T^og  Aao5ixeiav, 
or  some  such  thing.  Who  ever  heard  of  an  Epis- 
tle addressed  to  any  individual,  or  to  any  society, 
denominated,  an  Epistle,  from  them  ? 

2.  If  the  Epistle  referred  to  in  this  passage, 
had  been  one  written  by  Paul,  it  would  have 
been  most  natural  for  him  to  call  it  his  Epistle, 
and  tliis  would  have  rendered  his  meaning  incapa- 
ble of  misconstruciion. 

3.  All  those  best  qualified  to  judge  of  the  fact, 
and  who  were  well  acquainted  with  Paul's  history 
and  writings,  never  mention  any  such  Epistle : 
neither  Clement,  Hermas,  nor  the  Syriac  Inter- 
preter, knew  any  thing  of  such  an  Epistle  of 
Paul  ;  and  no  one  seems  to  have  had  knowledge 
of  any  such  writing,  except  Marcion,  who  pro- 
bably forged  it  to  answer  liis  own  piir[)Oses.  But 
whether  Marcion  did  acknowledge  an  Epistle  dif- 
ferent from  all  that  we  have  in  the  Canon,  lesison 
the  authority   of  f^piphanius,    who   wrote  a  criti* 


300 

cism  on  the  Apostolicon  of  Marcion  ;  but  as  we 
havf'  seen,  Tertulliaii  tells  us  a  difff  rent  story.  It 
is  of  little  importance  to  decide  which  of  these 
testimonies  is  most  credible  :  for  Marcion's  autho- 
rity, at  best,   is  worthless,  on  such  a  subject. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  to  what  Epistle  then,  dt)e5 
Paul  refer  ?  To  this  inquiry,  various  answers 
have  been  given,  and  perhaps  nothing  determin- 
ate can  now  be  said.  Theophylact  was  of  opinion, 
that  Paul's  First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  was  here  in- 
tended. But  this  is  not  probable.  Dr.  Lightfoat 
conjectures,  that  it  was  the  First  Epistle  of  John, 
which  he  supposes,  was  written  from  Laodicea. 
Others  have  thought  that  it  was  the  Epistle  of 
Paul  to  Philemon.  But  it  sterns  safest,  in  such 
a  case,  where  testimony  is  deficient,  to  follow  the 
literal  sense  of  the  words,  and  to  believe,  that  it 
was  an  Epistle  written  by  the  Laodiceans,  proba- 
bly to  himself,  which  he  had  sent  to  the  Colos^ 
sians,  together  with  his  own  Epistle, for  their  peru- 
sal. 

That  the  Epistle  which  is  now  extant,  is  not  the 
same  as  that  which  formerly  existed,  at  least  as 
early  as  tlie  fourth  century,  is  evident  from  the 
quotations  from  the  ancient  Epistle,  by  Epiphani- 
us  ;  for  no  such  words  as  he  cites,  are  in  the  Epis- 
tle, now  extant.  But  candour  requires  that  it  be 
mentioned,  that  they  are  contained  in  the  Epistle 
to  thfc-  Ephesians.  Let  this  weigh  as  much  as  it  is 
worth,  in  favour  of  the  opinion^  that  the  apostle,  ia 


301 

the  passage  under  consideration,  refers  to  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Ephesians.  This  opinion,  however,  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  our  position,  that  no  Ca- 
nonical BOOK  OF  THE  NlW  TeSTAMENT  HAS 
BtEN    LOST. 

This  proposition,  we  hope,   will  now  appear  to 
the  re'ader,  sufficiently  established. 


0  u  2 


jm. 


SECTIOIT    ZIV. 

RULFS  FOR  DEI  ERMIXIMC  WHAT  BOOKS  ARE  APOC- 
RYPiiAL— SOME  \CC;(;UN  I  OF  THE  APOCRYFH  \.L 
BOOKS  WHICH  HAVE  I5KE.V  LOS  T— ALL  OF. THEM 
CONDEMNED  BY  I'HE  FOREGOING  RULES— REASON 
OF  THE   ABOUNDING  OF    SUCH  BOOKS. 

Of  ihe  Apocryjihal  books  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, the  greater  part  have  long  since  sunk 
into  oblivion,  but  a  few  of  them  are  still  extant. 
All  of  them  can  be  proved  to  be  spurious,  or  at 
least  not  Canonical.  Their  claims  have  so  little 
to  support  them,  that  they  might  be  left  to  that 
oblivion,  into  which  they  have  so  generally  fallen, 
were  it  not, that  from  time  to  time, persons  unfriend- 
ly to  our  present  Canon,  bring  forward  these  books, 
and  pretend  that  some  of  them,  at  least,  have  as 
good  claims  to  Canonical  authority,  as  those  which 
are  received.  It  will  be  satisfactory  to  the  reader, 
therefore,  to  know  the  names  of  these  books,  and 
to  understand  the  principles  on  which  they  have 
been  uniformly  rejected  by  the  church. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  1  will  mention  the 
rules  laid  down  by  the  Rev.  Jeremiah  Jones,  by 
which  it  may  be  determined  that  a  book  is  Apoc- 
ryphal, and  then  I  \Yill  give  some  account  of  the 
hooks  nf  this  class,  w^hich  have  been  lost  ;  and 
finally,  consider  the  character  of  those  which  are 
still  extant. 


303 

1.  That  book  is  certainly  .Apocryphal,  which 
contains  ?nani/cst  cunt rudict ions. 

Tlic  reason  of  this  rule,  is  tot)  evident  to  need 
any  elucidation. 

'^.  That  book  is  Apocryphal,  tohich  contains 
any  doctrine  or  histo7\i/,  plainly  contrary  to 
those  IV Inch  arc  certainly  known  to  be  true. 

This  rule  also  is  too  clear  to  require  any  thin<' 
to  be  said   in  confirmation  of  its  propriety, 

3.  That  book  is  Apocryphal  which  contains 
any  thing  ludicrous  or  trijiin<r,  or  ichich 
abounds  in  silly  and  fabulous  stories. 

This  rule  is  not  only  true,  but  of  great  impor- 
tance, in  this  inquiry  ;  as  on  exaniin;.tion,  it  will  be 
found,  that  the  largest  part  of  apocryphal  books  may 
be  detected  by  the  application  of  this  single  rule. 

4.  That  book  is  Apocryphal,  which  me/itions 
things  of  a  date  ?nuch  later  than  the  tiine  in 
ivhich  the  author,  ufider  whose  nariie  it  goes, 
lived. 

This  rule  does  not  apply  to  predictions  of  future 
events,  which  events  occurred  long  after  the  death 
of  the  prophet;  but  to  a  reference  to  facts,  or 
names  of  places,  or  persons,  as  existing  when  the 
book  was  written,  which  are  known  to  have  ex- 
isled,  only  at  a  period  lung  since  the  time  when 
the  supposed  author  lived.  The  rule  will  be  bet- 
ter unilerstood,  if  illustrated  by  particular  exam- 
ples. The  book  entitled,  The  Constitutions  of 
THE  Apostles,  speaks  of  the  controversy  which 


304 

arose  in  the"  third  century,  respecting  the  rehapti- 
zation  of  heretics,  therefore,  it  is  not  the  work 
of  Clement  of  Rome,  to  whom  it  has  been  ascribe^d, 
nor  was  it  written  in  his  time,  but  long  after- 
wards. 

Again,  the  bonk  under'  the  name  of  Hf.gesip« 
PUS  is  not  genuine,  for  if  mentions  Constantine, 
and  Constantimple,  which  had  no  existence  until 
long  after  the  death  of  Hegesippus. 

Moreover,  in  The  Constitutions  of  the 
Apostlks,  there  is  mention  of  rites  and  ceremo- 
nie*',  relative  to  baptism,  fasting,  celibacy,  &c. 
wiiich  it  is  certain  had  no  existence  in  the  times 
of  the  apostles,  therefore  this  book  was  not  written 
by  an  apostolical  man,  nor  in  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles,   but  centuries  afterwards. 

5.  That  book  is  Apocryphal,  the  style  of  ivhich 
is  entirely  different  from  the  known  style  of  the 
author,  to  lohom  it  is  ascribed. 

It  is  easy  to  counterfeit  an  author's  name,  age, 
country,  opinions,  &c.  ;  but  it  will  be  found  almost 
impossible  to  imitate  his  style.  An  author,  it  is 
true,  may  vary  his  style,  to  suit  different  subjects, 
but  there  is  commonly  some  peculiarity  by  which 
he  maybe  distiiguished,  from  all  others.  "Je- 
rome," says  Sixtus,  "  writes  one  way,  in  his 
epistles,  another  in  his  controversies,  a  third,  in 
his  commentaries  ;--  one  way  when  young,  another 
when  old,  yet  he  always  so  writes,  that  you  may 
know  him  to  be  the  same  Jerome  still,  as  a  man 


305 

knows  his   friend,  under  all   the  various  casts  and 
turn.s  ol  hs  cuiitcnancr." 

Thus,  Augustine  says  of  Cyprian,  '•'  His  st\  le 
has  a  certain  peculiar  face,  by  which  it  may  be 
known." 

It  should  be  remembered,  h<'\vcver,  tliat  this 
rule,  alth()us;h  it  may  often  furnish  a  certain  de- 
tecti  in  of  spurious  \vritin;i;s,  is  one  which  requires 
mucii  caution  in  the  application.  There  is  ne.cl 
of  a  lonji;  and  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  st)  le 
of  an  author,  before  we  are  competent  to  determine 
whciher  a  book  could  have  been  written  by  him: 
and  the  difference  oua;ht  to  be  very  distinctly 
marked,  bi'fore  we  make  it  the  ground  of  any  im- 
portant judgment,  respictino;  the  genuineness  of  a 
work  ascribed  to  him,  especially  if  there  be  exter- 
nal evidence  in  its  favour.  In  fact,  too  free  an  ap- 
plication of  this  rule  has  led  to  many  errors,  both 
in  ancient  and  modern  times. 

6.  That  book  is  spurious  and  JJpocryphal, 
whose  idinrn  and  dialect  are  different  from 
tho^e  of  the  country^  to  which  the  reputed  au- 
thor belonged. 

The  idiom  and  dialt^ct  of  a  language,  are  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  style  of  an  author.  Every  lan- 
guage is  susceptible  of  every  variety  of  style,  but 
the  idiom  is  iht  sime,  in  all  who  use  the  laiigju.ige  : 
it  is  the  peculiarity,  not  of  an  individual,  but  of  a 
while   -ountry. 

"But  as  every  writer  has  a  style  of  his  own,  whiol; 


t  306 

cannot  easily  be  imitated  by  another ;  so,  ever}- 
country  has  an  idiom,  which  other  nations,  even 
if  they  learn  the  language,  cannot,  without  g;reat 
difficulty,  acquire.  And  for  the  same  reason  that 
a  writer  cannot  acquire  the  idiom  of  a  foreign 
tongue,  he  cannot  divest  himself  of  the  peculiari- 
ties of  his  own. 

An  Englishman  can  scarcely  write  and  speak 
the  French  lanjguage,  so  as  not  to  discover  by 
his  idiom,  that  it  is  not  his  vernacular  tongue. 
Hence  also,  a  North  Britton  can  be  distin- 
guished, not  only  from  the  peculiarity  of  his  pro- 
nunciation, but  by  his  idiom.  And  this  is  the 
reason,  that  modern  scholars  can  never  write  Latin, 
in  the  maimer  of  the  classic  authors. 

This  rule,  thercfoiC,  is  of  great  importance  in 
detecting  the  spuriousness  of  a  book,  when  the 
real  author  lived  after  the  time  of  the  person  whose 
name  is  assumed,  or  in  a  country  where  a  diffrrtnt 
language,  o-  a  difftrent  dialect,  was  in  use.  It  will 
be  found  almost  imj)ossibie,  to  avoid  phrases  and 
modes  of  speech,  which  were  liot  in  Uvse  in  the 
time  of  the  person,  under  whose  name  the  work 
is  edited  :  and  the  attempt  at  imitating  an  idiom 
■which  is  not  perfectly  familiar,  leads  to  an  affecta- 
tion and  stiffness  of  manner,  which  usually  betrays 
the  impostor. 

The  influence  of  native  idiom,  appears  no  where 
more  remarkably,  than  in  the  writirngs  of  the  New 
Testament.     These  books,  although  written  in  the 


307 

Greek  tonsjue,  coniiiiii  an  idiom  so  manifestly  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  tlie  lan<^uaa;e  in  common  use 
at  iliat  time,  that  it  cannot  but  be  observed  by  all, 
who  liave  even  a  superficial  acquaintance  with  Gre- 
cian literature. 

The  fact  is,  as  has  often  been  observed  by  learri' 
ed  men,  that  while  the  words  of  these  books  are 
Greek,  the  idiom  is  Hebrew  The  writers  liad, 
from  their  infancy,  been  accustomed  to  the 
Syro-Chaldaic  language,  which  is  a  corruption 
of  the  ancient  Ilel)rew.  Now,  this  peculiarity 
of  idiom  could  never  have  been  successfully  imitat- 
ed by  any  native  Greek  ;  nor  by  any  one,not  early 
conversant  with  the  vernacular  tongue  of  Pales- 
tine, ai  that  time.  When,  therefore,  men  of  other 
countries,  and  other  times,  undertook  to  publish 
books,  under  Xh'-  name  of  the  apostles,  the  im- 
posture was  manifest  at  once,  to  all  capable  o? 
ju'lging  correctly  on  the  suhj- ct;  because,  although 
they  could  write  in  the  same  language  as  the  apos- 
tles, they  could  not  |)ossibIy  imitate  their  idiom. 
This  theref)re  furnishes  a  most  i'liportant  charac- 
teristic, to  distinguish  between  the  genuine  writ- 
ings of  the  apostles,  and  such  as  are  supp  isiiious. 

7.  That  hook  is  .spurious  which  exhibits  a  dis- 
position and  temper  of  mind,  very  different 
from   that   of  the  person  to  whom  it  is  ascrit)ed. 

'Vh'xs  rule  depends  -in  .»  principle  in  humin  na- 
ture, well  understood,  and  needs  no  particular  elu- 
cidation. 


308 

6.  That  book  is  not  genuine,  which  consists 
principally  of  tnerc  extracts  from  other  books. 

This  is  also  so  evident,  that  it  requires  no  illus- 
tration. 

9.  Those  books  lohich  were  never  cited,  nor 
7'eferred  to  as  Scripture,  by  any  ivriter  of  cre- 
dit for  the  first  four  hundred  years  after  the 
apostles^  days,  is  Apocryphal. 

10.  Those  books  which  were  expressly  rejected 
by  the  Fathers  of  the  first  ages  as  spurious,  and 
attributed  by  them  to  heretics,  are  Jlpocryphal. 

By  the  application  of  the  foregoing  rules,  it 
can  be  shown,  that  every  book  which  claims 
Canonical  authority,  not  included  in  our  present 
Canon,  is  apocryphal.  When  we  denominate  all 
books  apocryphal,  which  are  not  Canonical,  we  do 
not  mean  to  reduce  them  all  to  the  same  level. 
A  book  whicli  is  not  Canonical  may  be  a  very  in- 
structive and  useful  book.  As  a  human  composi- 
tion, it  may  deserve  to  be  highly  esteemed  ;  and 
as  the  writin_sj;  of  a  pious  and  eminent  man  of  anti- 
quity, it  n)ay  claim  peculiar  respect. 

The  ancient  method  of  division  was  more  accu- 
rate than  ours.  They  divickd  all  books  into  iliree 
classes  ;  first,  the  Canonical  ;  SC'  ondly,  the  Eccle- 
siasdcal  ;  and  tliirdl}^  the  Spurious.  And  there 
is  reason  to  believe,  that  some  books  which  were 
written  without  the  least  fraudulent  desig  ,  by 
anonymous  authors,  have,  by  the  ia;norance  of  ;beir 
successors,  been  ascribed  to  the  wrong  persons* 


309 

That  the  Fathers  did  sometimes  cite  apocryphal 
books,  in  their  writinojg,  is  true  ;  hut  so  did  Paul 
cite  ilie  Hralht-n  Poets.  If 'hrs*-  hooks  an*  some- 
times mentioned,  without  any  note  of  disapproba- 
tion annexed,  it  can  commonly  he  cle;trly  ascer- 
tained from  other  places  in  the  same  author,  that 
he  held  them  to  he  Apocryphal.  Thus,  Okigen, 
in  one  place,  quotes  the  (;o.>>pel  accirding  to 
THK  Hebri-,w>,  withont  any  expression  of  disap- 
probation ;  but  in  another  pince,  he  rejects  it,  as 
spurious,  and  declares,  "That  the  church  receivei: 
no  more  than  four  o^nspels." 

Sometimes,  the  Fathers  cited  these  Apocryphal 
books,  to  show  that  their  knowledge  was  not  con- 
fined to  their  own  books,  and  that  they  did  not 
reject  others,  through  ignorance  of  their  contents. 
Remarkably  to  this  purpose,  are  the  words  of  Ori- 
gen.  *' The  chunh,"  says  he,  "r<c>ives  only 
four  gospels:  heretics  have  many,  such  as,  the 
gnspel  of  the  Egyptians,  the  gospel  (^f  Thomas, 
&.C.:  these  we  reatl,  that  we  may  not  seem  to  he 
iguorant,  to  those  who  think  they  know  something 
extraordinary,  if  they  are  acquainted  with  those 
things  which  are  recorded  in  these  books." 

To  the  same  purpose,  speaks  Ambrose  ;  for 
havii'.g  mentioned  several  of  these  books,  he  says, 
"  VVc  read  these  that  they  may  not  be  read  by 
others  ;  we  read  them,  that  we  may  not  seem 
to  be  is^norant  ;  we  read  ihem,  not  that  we  receive 
them,  bui  that  we  may  reject  them  ;  and  may 
D  n 


310 

kno'v  what  those  things  are  of  which  they  make 
such  a  boast." 

In  some  instances,  it  seems  probable,  that  some 
of  the  Fathers  took  passages  out  of  these  books, 
because  they  wore  acknowledged  by  those  against 
whom  they  were  writmg  ;  being  v\illing  to  dispute 
with  them  on  their  own  principles,  and  to  confute 
them  by  their  own  books. 

It  may  perhaps  be  true  also,  that  one  or  two  of 
the  Fathers,  cited  passages  from  these  books,  be- 
cause they  contained  facts,  not  recorded  in  the  Can- 
onical gospels.  The  apostle  John  informs  us,  that 
our  Lord  performed  innumerable  miracles,  besides 
those  which  he  had  recorded,  the  which,  if  they 
should  be  ivritten,  every  one,  I  suppose  the  world 
itself,  could  not  contain  the  books  lohich  should 
be  written.  Now,  some  tradition,  of  some  of 
th* se  things,  would  undoubtedly  be  handed  down 
as  low  as  to  the  second  century,  and  might  find 
its  way  into  some  of  the  Apocryphal  gospels, 
and  might  be  cited  by  peisons  who  did  not  be- 
lieve the  book  to  be  of  Canonical  authority,  just 
as  we  refer  to  any  profane  author,  for  the  proof  of 
such  facts  as  are  credibly  related  by  tiien.  Tliere 
is,  at  least,  one  example  of  this.  Jerome,  refers 
to  'he  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  for  a  fact  : 
and  yet  he  most  explicitly  rejects  this  book,  as 
Apocryphal 

The  only  books  which  were  ever  read  in  the 
churches,  besides  tiie  Canonical,   were  a  few  writ- 


311 


ten  bv  apnsfolioal  men  :  which,  althono;h  not  writ- 
ten by  a  [)|{?nnry  i:  spiration,  wrrc  thi'  iiriiuiiie 
writings  ol'  tht.-  persons  wliose  ii;ini»'S  th'y  b<Te, 
and  were  pious  produriions,  and  tonilocl  to  edifica- 
tion ;  such  as,  the  Kpislh-  of  Cl(  nient^  the  Sl.ep- 
herd  of  Hernias,  ai.d  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  ; 
but  no  spurious  books  were  ever  read  in  the 
churchi  s. 

None  of  the  writings  falsely  ascribed  to  Christ 
and  bis  apostles,  ever  acquirrd  so  much  authority, 
:is  to  be  publicly  read  in  any  church,  as  far  as  we 
knou-.  Indeed,  although  the  Apocryphal  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  were  very  numerous,  yet 
they  did  not  appear  in  the  aj^e  of  the  church,  next 
after  the  times  of  the  apostles.  In  the  first  centu- 
ry, no  hooks  of  this  rlcscripiion  are  referred  to, 
unless  we  suppose  that  Luke,  in  the  beginning  of 
his  gospel,  intends  to  speak  of  such.  In  the  second 
•■entury,  a  few  s))urious  writings  began  to  be  first 
put  into  circulation,  as,  the  Tiospel  accokding 
TO  THK  Hebrews  ;  the  (Jospel  op  Truth,  used 
by  the  Valentinians  ;  the  Pkeaching  of  Petek  ; 
the  Tkadttions  op  Matthias  ;  the  Acts  of 
Paul  and  Thecla  ;  the  Gospel  of  Marcion  ; 
THE  Revelation  of  CERrNTnus;  and  a  few  others 
<jf  less  note.  Hut  in  the  third  century,  the  num- 
ber of  Apocryphal  books,  was  considerably  in- 
creased ;  and  in  the  fourth  and  fifih  centuries, 
t.hey  were  exrefdingly  multiplied. 

If  it  be  inquired,  how  it  happened  that  so  many 


313 

Apocryphal  books  were  written,  it  may  confidently 
be  answered,  ll.at  the  principal  cause  was,  the 
aboui.dii  g  of  heresies.  Ahnost  all  tht-  spurious 
writings,  under  the  names  of  the  aposiles,  are  the 
produciions  of  heretics,  as  we  learn  from  the  tes- 
timony iftho.se  Fathers  who  have  made  mention 
of  them.  It  is,  hnwevr,  true,  that  some  mistaken 
well-measiing  people,  thought,  that  they  could 
add  honour  to  the  apostles,  or  contribute  to  the 
edification  of  ;he  church,  by  resorting  to  (what 
have  improperly  been  cd\\e.6)  piovs frauds.  They 
imagined,  also,  that  they  could  recommend  Christ- 
ianity to  the  Gentiles,  by  inventing  stories,  which 
they  rashly  pretended,  were  sayings,  or  actions  of 
Christ.  Thus  a  opting  the  pernicious  maxim,  so 
peremptorily  denounced  by  Paul,  that  we  may 
do  evil  that  good  may  come  ;  or  that  the  good- 
ness of  the  end,  will  satisfy  the  badness  of  the 
means.  Of  this,  we  have  one  remarkable  exam- 
ple, in  the  spurious  book,  still  extant,  entitled, 
The  %B.cts  of  Paul  and  Thecla,  which  a  certain 
Asiatic  presbyter  confessed  that  be  had  forged, 
and  assigned  as  his  reason  for  this  forgery,  that 
he  wished  to  show  resiiect  to  Paul.  But  in  con- 
nexion with  this  fact,  we  have  satisfactory  proof 
of  the  vigilance  of  the  church,  in  guarding  the 
Sacred  Canon  from  corruption  ;  for  the  book  was 
no  sooner  published,  than  a  strict  inquiry  was 
instituted  into  its  origin,  and  the  prtsbUer  men- 
tioned above,  having  been   detected  as  the  author. 


d!3 

was  deprived  of  his  ofticc  in  tlic  church.  This 
account  is  given  hy  Tertullian  ;  and  Jerome  adds, 
that  the  detection  of  this  forgery  was  made  by  the 
apostle  John. 

It  is  probable,  also,  that  sonic  of  ihese  books 
were  written  without  any  evil  purpose,  by  weak 
men,  who  wrote  down  ail  the  stories  they  had  re- 
ceived by  tradition  ;  for,  no  doubt,  a  niultitudc 
of  traditions  rcvspecting  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
with  extravagant  distortions  and  additions,  would 
be  handed  down  for  several  generations. 

By  all  these  means,  the  number  of  Apocryphal 
books  of  the  New  Testament  was  greatly  multiplied. 
But  by  far  the  greater  number  of  these  liave  perished; 
yet  there  is  no  difficulty  in  determining,  that  none 
of  them  had  any  just  claim  to  a  place  m  the  Canon. 
By  one  or  more  of  the  rules  laid  down  above,  they 
can  all  be  demonstrated  to  have  been  Apocryphal  : 
and  indeed  most  of  them  are  never  mentioned  by 
any  ancif-nt  author,  in  any  other  light  than  as  spu- 
rious writings.  *  There  is  a  famous  deciee  of  pope 
Gelasius,  in  which,  at  least  twenty -five  of  these 
books  are  named,  and  declared  to  be  Apocryphal. 
It  is  not  certain,  indeed,  whether  this  decree  ought 
to  be  ascribed  to  Gklasius,  or  to  one  of  his  pre- 
decessors, Damasus  ;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  it  is  very  ancient,  and  is  by  most  sufiposed  to 
have  been  formed,    in  the  council  which   met  at 

*  See  Note  D 
D   D  * 


»14 

Rome,  A.  D.  494.  A  translation  of  this  deeret 
exir-jcied  from  Jones,  will  be  found  in  the  notes 
at  the  end  of  the  vokime. 

*  See  Note  E. 


8E0TZ0IT       XV. 

— .e®e— 

AFOrRYPHAL  ROOKS  WHICH  AUK  STIIX  EXTANT- 
LEI  TER  OF  ARCiAKUS  KIN(;  OF  EDESSA  I  O  JESl'3, 
AND  HIS  ANSWER— EPISILE  lO  THE  LAODICEANS 
— I.El  TRRS  OF  PAUL  TO  SENECA— I'UOTEVANCiE- 
LlOV  OF  JAMES— THE  COMPEL  OF  0«R  SWIOUR'S 
INFANCY— IHE  AC  I  S  OF  PILATE— THE  ACTS  OF 
PAUL   AND    IHECLA. 

We  come  now  to  consider  those  Apocryphal 
books  which  are  still  extant,  and  concerning, 
which,  therefore,  we  can  speak  more  particu- 
larly. 

The  first  of  these,  is  the  Letter  of  Abgarus, 
King  of  Edessa,  addressed  to  Jesus,  us  sent 
hy  hh  footman  Jinanias. 

EusKRius  is  the  first  who  makes  mention  of  this 
Epistle,  and  the  sum  of  his  account  is.  that  our  Sa- 
viour's miraculous  works  drew  innumerable  per- 
sons to  him,  from  the  most  remote  countries,  to  be 
healed  of  their  diseases  ; — that  Abgakus,  a  famous 
King  beyond  the  Euphrates,  wrote  to  him,  be- 
cause he  was  afflicted  with  a  malady,  incurable  by 
human  art.  Our  Lord  promised  to  send  one  of  his 
disciples  to  him,  and  Thaddeus,  one  of  the  seventy 
disciples  was  sent  by  Thomis  after  the  ascension 
of  Jesus,  by  an  intimation  given   him  from  hea- 


316 

ven.  For  the  truth  of  this  story,  Eusehius  appeals 
to  thf  public  records  of  the  city  of  Edessa,  where, 
he  says,  all  the  transactions  of  the  reign  of  Abgarus 
are  preserved  in  the  Sj^-iac  language  ;  out  of  which 
he  translated  these  Epistles,  and  the  accompanying 
history.  He  proceeds  to  relate,  that  Thaddeus 
having  come  to  Edessa,  wrought  many  miracles, 
and  healed  many  that  were  diseased,  Abgarus, 
supposing  that  this  was  the  person  whom  Christ 
had,  in  bis  letter,  promised  to  send  to  him,  as  soon 
as  Thaddeus  was  introduced  lo  him,  perceiving 
something  extraordinary  in  his  countenance,  fell 
down  before  him,  at  which  his  nobles  were  greatly 
surprised.  The  king  having  inquired,  whether  he 
was  the  person  sent  by  Christ,  he  answered  that 
on  account  of  the  faith  of  Christ  he  was  sent,  and 
assured  him,  that  all  things  should  be  according  to 
his  faith.  To  which  the  king  replied,  that  he  be- 
lieved so  much  in  Christ,  that  he  was  resolved, 
had  it  not  been  for  fear  of  the  Romans,  to  hare 
made  war  with  the  Jews  for  crucifying  him. 
Thaddeus  informed  him  of  the  ascension  of  Christ 
to  his  Father  ;  the  king  replied,  I  believe  in  him> 
and  in  his  Father  also  ;  on  which  the  apostle  said, 
I  lay  my  hand  on  you  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ  ;  and  the  king  was  instantly  cured  of  his 
disease.  He  also  cured  others  who  were  diseas- 
ed ;  and  on  the  morrow,  the  king  ordered  all  the 
city  lo  meet  together,  to  hear  the  apostle  preach. 
The  king  offered  him  gold  and  silver,  which  he  re- 


817 

fuspH,  sayinc;,  ff^e  have  left  our  own,  und fthould 
we  take  I  hat  which  is  aii()thcr\s? 

These  Epistles  are  also  mentioiifd  by  Ephrkm, 
the  Syrian,  who  was  a  deacon  in  the  cliurch  of 
Edessa,  in  the  latter  end  of  the  fourth  century. 
His  account  of  this  matter,  as  je;iven  by  Dr.  Grabe, 
is  as  follows  ;  "  Blessed  be  your  city,  and  mother 
Edessa,  which  was  expressly  blessed  by  the  mouth 
of  the  Lord,  and  his  disciples,  but  our  apostles  ; 
for  ^vhen  Ab^arus  the  kine;,  vvho  built  that  city, 
thought  fit  to  send  and  acknowledge  Christ,  the 
Lord  and  Saviour  of  all,  in  his  pilgrimage  on 
earth  ;  saying,  I  have  heard  all  things  which  are 
do'ie  by  you,  and  how  much  you  have  suffered  by 
tht>  Jews,  who  contemn  you  ;  wherefore,  come 
hither,  and  take  up  your  r  sidence  with  mo.  I 
have  a  little  city,  whirh  siiall  be  equally  yours  and 
mine.  Hereupon,  the  Lord  admiring  his  faith, 
sent  by  messeugt-rs  a  blcs^iig  unto  the  city,  which 
should  abide  forever,  till  the  Holy  One  be  revealed 
from  Heaven,  even  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God, 
and  God  of  God." 

No  other  writir  of  the  first  four  centuries,  makes 
any  explicit  mention  of  this  Epistle  ;  but  Proco- 
pius,  in  the  sixth  century,  in  his  history  of  the 
Persian  war,  relates,  <'That  Abgarus  had  been 
long  afflicted  with  the  gout,  and  finding  no  relief 
from  the  physioians,  but  hearing  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ, sent  to  him,  and  desired  that  he  would  come 
and   live  with  him  j  and   Uiat  upon  his  receiving 


318 

an  answer  from  Christ,  be  was  immediately  cured  : 
and  that  our  Saviour  in  the  end  of  his  let  er,  gave 
Abojarus  assurance,  that  his  city  should  never  be 
tak^n  by  enemies." 

EvAGRius,  in  ihe  Intter  end  of  the  sixth  centu- 
ry, appeals  to  this  account  of  Procopius,  and  con- 
firms the  story,  that  the  city  never  should  be  taken 
by  enemies,  by  a  r<  ference  to  some  facts,  particu- 
larly the  failure  of  Chosioes,  to  take  the  city, 
when  he  laid  siege  to  it.  But  this  author  adds  a 
circumstance,  which  has  nuch  the  air  of  a  fable, 
tha'  this  failure  of  cap'uring  the  city  was  brought 
ab  iut  by  a  picture  of  Christ's  face,  which  he  had 
impressed  on  a  handkerchief,  and  sent  to  Abga- 
Rus,  ai  his  earnest  request. 

Cedrenus  adds  to  all  the  rest,  that  Christ  sealed 
his  lett(  r,  with  a  seal  consisting  of  seven  Hebrew 
letters,  the  meaning  of  which  was,  the  divine  niir- 
acle  of  God  is  seen. 

Among  the  moderns,  a  very  large  majority 
are  of  opinion,  that  this  Epistle  is  Apocryplial. 
Indeed  the  principal  advocates  of  i's  genuineness, 
are  a  few  1<  arned  Englishrnen,  particularly,  Dr. 
Parker,  Dr.  Cave,  and  Dr.  Grahe,  but  they  do 
not  speak  confidently  on  the  subject ;  while  on  the 
oti'er  side,  are  fuund  almost  the  whole  body  of 
learned  erities,  hoth  Protestants  and  Romanists. 
!Now,  tt>a!  rhis  Epistle  and  history  existed  iu  the 
Archives  of  Ed-'ssa,  in  the  tio'e  of  EuseHius, 
there  is  no  room  to  doubt,  unless  we  would  accuse 


3)9 

this  respectable  hisforian  of  the  most  deliberate 
lais(>hoocl  ;  for  he  asserts  thnt  ho  himspjf,  hail  taken 
them  thence.  His  words,  however,  must  not  be 
too  strictly  interpreted,  as  though  he  had  himself 
been  at  Edessa,  and  had  translated  the  Epistle 
from  the  Syriac  ;  for  there  is  reason  to  believe,  that 
he  never  visit:  d  that  place^  and  that  he  v^-as  not 
acquainted  with  the  Syriac  ton^;ue.  The  words 
will  be  sufiRciently  verified,  if  this  document  was 
translated  and  transmitted  to  him,  through  an  au- 
thentic channel,   fmm  Edessa. 

It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  this  story  has  some 
foundation  in  truth.  Probably,  Thaddeus,  or  some 
other  apostle,  did  preach  the  gospel  and  pcrf  )rm 
miracles  in  that  city  ;  but  how  much  of  the  story 
is  credible,  it  is  not  now  easy  to  determine.  But 
I  think,  it  may  be  shown,  that  this  Epistle  was  ne- 
ver penned  by  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  following  rea- 
sons. 

1.  It  is  never  mentioned,  in  the  genuine  gos- 
pels ;  nor  referred  to  by  any  writer  of  the  first  three 
centuries. 

2.  If  this  account  had  been  true,  there  never 
could  have  been  any  hesitation,  among  the  apos- 
tles, about  preaching  the  gospd  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. 

3.  It  is  unreasonable  to  believe,  that  if  Christ 
had  been  applied  to  by  this  king  for  healing,  he 
would  have  deferred  a  cure,  until  he  could  send 
an  apostle,  after  his  ascension.     This  does  not  cor- 


320 

respond  with  the  usual  conduct  of  the  benevolent 
Saviour. 

4.  It  seems  to  have  been  a  tradition  universally 
received,  that  Christ  never  wrote  any  thing  him- 
self ;  and  if  he  had  written  this  letter,  it  would 
have  been  more  prized  than  any  other  portion  of 
Scripture,  and  would  have  been  placed  in  the 
Canon,  and  every  where  read  in  th^  churches. 

5.  After  it  was  published  by  Eusebius,  it  ne- 
ver gained  so  much  credit,  as  to  be  received  as  a 
genuine  writing  of  Christ.  As  it  was  unknown  in 
the  first  three  centuries  ;  so,  in  the  fourth, 
when  published,  it  was  scarcely  noticed  by  any  wri- 
ter. 

6.  The  plain  mention  of  our  Lord's  ascensif>n,in 
the  Epistle,  is  an  evidence  of  its  spuriousness  ; 
for  in  all  his  discourses,  recorded  by  the  Evange- 
lists, there  is  no  such  explicit  declaration  of  this 
event ;  and  it  cannot  be  su[)posed,  that  he  would 
speak  more  explicitly  to  a  Heathen  king,  than  to 
the  ^.ersons,  chosen  to  be  witnesses  of  his  actions, 
and  dispensers  of  his  doctrine. 

There  is,  however,  nothing  in  the  sentiments 
express  d  in  this  Epistle,  unsuitable  to  the  liumble 
and  benevolent  character  of  the  Saviour  ;  but  learn- 
ed n.en  have  supposed  thst  there  are  several  inter- 
nal evidences  of  spuriousi  ess,  besides  the  one  just 
iTiCtitioned.  I  conceive,  h  v\  ever,  that  the  re.ison? 
alrradv  aS'-ian-  d  will  be  c 'nsidere>!  as  sufficient  to 
prove,  that  this  Letter  forms  no  part  of  tne  Sacred 


321 

Canon.  It  is  excluded  by  several  of  the  rules  laid 
down,  above;  and  even  if  it  was  genuine,  it  seems, 
that  it  ought  ralher  to  be  received  as  a  private  com- 
munication, than  as  intended  for  the  edificatioti  of 
the  whole  church.  The  history,  which  accompanies 
the  letter,  has  several  strong  marks  of  >parious- 
ness,  but  as  this  does  not  claim  to  be  Canonical, 
we  need  not  pursue  the  subject  further.  It  may, 
however,  not  be  amiss  tu  remark,  that  the  story  of 
(he  picture  of  our  Saviour  impresstd  on  a  hand- 
kerchief and  sent  to  Abi^arus,  is  enough  of  itself 
to  condemn  the  history  as  fabulous.  This  s.ivours 
not  of  the  simplicity  of  Christ  ;  and  has  no  par- 
allel in  any  thing  recorded  in  the  Guspel.* 

II.  There  is  now  extant,  an  E|)isile,  under  the 
title  of,  Paui.  to  the  Lacdickans  ;  and  it  is 
known,  that  as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century,  a  work  exisied  under  ihis  name,  which 
was  received  by  INIarcion,  the  heretic.  Hut 
there  is  good  reas  )n  for  thinking,  that  the  Epistle 
now  extant,  is  an  entir.ly  different  work.  fr.)ni  the 
one  which  ancieiitly  exi-ted  ;  for  the  prcsciit  Epis- 
tle does  not  contain  the  words,  whicii  Epipha.iius 
has  cited  from  thit  used  by  M  iroion  :  and  wiiat 
renders  this  clear  is,  that  the  ancient  E|)istle  was 
heretical,  and  was  rejected  by  the  Fathers  of  the 
church,  with  one  cons,  nt  ;  whenas,  the  Ejjisile 
whicli  we  now  have,  c>tntaiijs  nothing  erroneous  j 

"  See  Note  F- 

E    E 


322 

for  it  is  a  mere  compilation  from  the  other  Epistles 
of  Paul,  with  a  few  additional  sentences,  which 
contain  no  heretical  doctrine. 

As  the  Epistle  is  short,  a  translation  of  it  will 
be  given  in  the  Noies,  at  the  eml  of  the  volume.* 

Concerning  the  ancient  Epistle,  under  this  title, 
PhilasJrius  says,  "  That  some  were  of  opinion, 
that  it  was  written  by  Luke  ;  but  because  the 
heretics  have  inserted  some  (false)  things,  it  is  for 
that  reason  not  read  in  the  churches.  Though  it 
be  read  by  some,  yet  there  are  no  more  than  thir- 
teen Epistles  of  Paul  read  to  the  people  in  the 
church,   and  sometimes,  that  to  the  Hebrews  " 

''  There  are  some,"  says  Jerome,  "  who  read 
an  Epistle,  under  the  name  of  Paul,  to  the  Laodi- 
ceans,   but  it  is  rejected  by  all." 

And  Epiphanius  calls  it,  "  An  Epistle  not  writ- 
ten by  the  apostles." 

The  Epistle  now  extant,  never  having  been  re- 
ceived into  the  ancient  catalogues,  read  in  the 
churches,  or  cited  as  Scripture,  is  of  course  Apoc- 
ryphal. 

It  is  also  proved  not  to  be  genuine,  because  it 
is  almost  entirely,  an  extract  from  the  other  Epis, 
ties  of  Paul. 

III.  Another  writing  which  has  been  ascribed 
to  Paul  is.  Six  Letteks  to  Seneca  ;  with  which 
are  connected,  Eight  Letters  from  Seneca  to  Paul. 
These   Letters  are   of  undoubted  antiquity  ;  and 

*  See  Note  G- 


323 

several  learned  men  of  the  Jesuits,  have  defended 
them  as  •jenuine  ;  and  allege,  that  th'-y  are  similar 
to  other  Epistles  received  into  the  Canon,  which 
wer^;  addressed  to  individuals.  That  such  letters 
were  in  existence  as  early  as  the  fourth  century, 
appears  from  a  passagje  in  Jerome's  Catilogjue  of 
Illusirious  Men,  where  he  fjives  the  following;  ac- 
count of  Seneca;  <*  Lucius  Annaeus  Seneca,  born 
at  Corduba,  a  disciple  of  Sotio,  a  Stoic,  uncle  of 
Lucan  the  poet,  was  a  person  of  very  exinor- 
dinary  temperance,  whom  I  slionjcl  not  have  rank- 
ed in  mv  Cafalogue  of  Saints,  but  that  I  was 
determined  to  it,  by  the  Kpistles  Of  Paul  to 
Senka,  and  Seneca  to  Paul,  vvhicli  are  n-ad  by 
many.  In  which,  thoiiujh  he  was  at  tliat  lime 
tutor  to  Nero,  and  made  a  very  consideridjle  fi;i;urc, 
he  saitli,  he  wishes  to  be  of  the  same  repute  among 
his  countrymen,  as  Paul  was  among  the  Christians. 
He  was  slain  by  Nero,  two  years  before  Peter 
and  Paul  were  hon  >ured  witii  martyrdom." 

There  is  also  a  prissage  in  Augustine's  54th  Epis- 
tle, to  Macedonius,  which  shows  that  he  was  i  ot 
un:icqnainted  with  these  Letters.  His  words  are, 
•*  It  is  true,  which  Seneca,  who  lived  in  the  tim.-s 
of  the  ap 'Sties,  and  ?^7-^o  wrote  certain  Epistles 
to  Paul  whirh  are  now  read,  s;iid,  he  who  will 
hate  those  who  are    wicked,    must  hate  all  men  " 

There  is  no  authentic  evidence,  that  these  Let- 
ters have  been  rioiiced  by  any  of  the  rest  of  the 
Fathers.      Indeed,  it  has  been  too  hastily  asserted 


334 

by  several  eminent  critics,  that  Aujjjustine  believed 
that  the  Letteis  of  Paul  to  Seneca  were  genuine  ; 
but  the  fact  is,  that  he  makes  no  mention,  whatever, 
of  Paul's  Letters  ;  he  only  mentions  ihose  of  Se- 
neca to  Paul.  The  probability  is,  that  he  never 
saw  them,  for  had  he  been  acquainted  with  them, 
it  is  scarcely  credible,  that  he  would  have  said 
nothii'ir  respectina;  tliem,  in  this  place. 

Neither  does  Jerome  say  any  thing  from  which 
it  can  with  any  ct  rtainty  be  inferred,  that  he  re- 
ceived these  Letters  as  genuine.  He  gives  them 
the  title  by  which  they  were  known,  and  says, 
they  were  read  by  many  ;  but  if  he  had  believed 
them  to  be  genuine  Letters  of  Paul,  would  he  not 
have  said  much  more?  Would  he  not  have  claimed 
for  them  a  place  among  Paul's  Canonical  P^pisties  ? 
And  what  proyes,  that  this  Father  did  not  believe 
them  to  be  genuine  is,  that  in  this  same  book,  he 
gives  a  full  account  of  Paul  and  his  writings,  and 
yet  does  not  make  the  least  mention  of  theseLetters 
to  Seneca. 

But  the  style  of  these  Letters  sufficiently  de- 
monstrates, that  t!  ey  are  not  genuine.  Nothing 
can  be  more  dissimilar  to  the  style  of  Paul,  and 
of  Seneca,  thai;  that  of  these  Epistles.  The  style 
of  those  attributed  to  Seneca,  says  Du  Pin,  is  bar- 
barous, and  full  of  idioms  that  do  not  belong  to 
the  Latin  tongue.  "And  those  attributed  to  Paul''' 
says  Mr.  Jeremiah  Jones,  <'have  not  the  least  tine 


:f25 

ture  ol  the  j^ravity  of  the  apostle,  but  are   rathet 
couijjlimcnt-*    hin  instructions." 

The  subscriptions  to  these  Letters,  are  very  dif- 
ferent from  those  used  by  these  writers  in  their 
genuine  F]pistles  Seneca  is  made  to  salute  Paul 
by  the  name  of  brother  ;  aff  a]>p''lation  not  in  use 
amonsjtltc  Ht^athen,  but  peculiar  to  Christians. 

By  several  of  these  Letters  it  would  appear,  that 
Pan!  was  at  Rome  ivhcn  they  were  written,  but 
from  others,  the  contrary  may  be  iiiferred. 

It  seems  strmeje,  if  they  wore  both  in  the  city, 
that  they  should  dat"  iht-ir  Letters  by  consulships; 
and,  indeed,  this  method  of  dating  Letters,  was 
wholly  unkno^vn  among  the  Romans;  and  there 
are  several  mistakes  in  them,  in  reg  »rd  to  the  con- 
suls in  authority,  at  the  time. 

Their  trifling  contents  is  also  a  strong  argument 
of  spui iousness.  "They  contain  nothing,"  says 
Du  Pi),  "  worthy  eithur  of  Seneca  or  of  Paul  ; 
scarcely  one  moral  sentiment  in  the  Lttiters. of  Se- 
neca, nor  any  thing  of  Christianity  in  those  of 
Paul." 

What  can  be  more  unlike  Paul  than  the  Fifth 
Letter,  which  is  occupied  with  a  servile  ajjology 
for  p'ltting  his  own  name  before  Seneca's,  in  the 
inscription  of  his  Letters,  and  declaring  this  to  be 
contrary  to  Christianity  ? 

These  Letters,    moreov  r,   coi;tain   some  things 
which   are  not  true,  as,  *<  That  the  ^mperor  Nero 
was  delighted   and   surprised   at  the   thoughts  in 
E  K  2 


'326 

Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Churches  :" — '•  Ami  that 
N^-ro  was  both  ati  admirer  and  favourer  of  Christi- 
anity.'^ But  very  incongruous  with  this,  and  also 
with  Paul's  character,  is  that  which  he  is  made  to 
say,  in  his  Fourth  Epistle,  where  he  entreats  Si^n- 
eca  to  say  no  more  to  the  Emperor  respecting  him 
or  Christianity,  lest  he  should  offend  him.  Yet,  in 
the  Sixth  Letter,  he  adVises  Seneca  to  take  conve- 
nient opportunities  of  insinuating  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, and  things  favourable  to  it,  to  Nero  and 
his  family.  But  for  further  particulars,  the  reader 
is  referred  to  the  Epistles  themselves,  a  translation 
of  which,  extracted  from  Jones,  is  inserted  in  the 
Notes* 

IV.  There  is  extant  a  spurious  gospel,  entitled, 
The  Protevangelion  of  James,  in  the  Greek 
language,  which  was  brought  from  the  East  by 
FosTELL,  who  asserts,  that  it  is  held  to  be  genu- 
ine by  the  Oriental  churches,  and  is  publicly  read 
in  their  asse.nblies,  with  the  other  Scriptures. 
This  learned  man,  moreover,  undertakes  the  de- 
fence of  this  gospel,  as  the  genuine  production 
of  the  a[)OStle  James  ;  and  insists,  that  it  ought  at 
least,  to  have  a  place  in  the  Hagiographa.  But 
his  arguments  are  weak,  and  have  been  fully  refu- 
ted by  Fabricius  and  Jones. 

This  Apocryphal  book,  however,  appears  to  be 
ancient ,;  or  at  least,  there  was  formerly  a  book  un- 

^  See  Note  H. 


;j27 

der  the  same  name,  but  that  it  is  not  Canonical,  is 
easily  proved.  It  is  quote<l  by  none  of  the  ancii'nt 
Fathers,  except  Epipl>anius,  who  explicitly  rejects 
it,  as  Apocryphal.  It  is  found  in  none  <•{  the  cata- 
logues, and  was  never  read  in  the  primiilve  church. 
It  contains  many  false  and  triflinj>;  stories  ;  and  in 
its  style  and  composition,  is  a  perfect  contrast  to 
the  genuine  gospels  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ. 

From  the  Hebraisms  with  which  it  abounds,  it 
has  been  supposed  to  he  the  work  of  some  person, 
who  was  oriu;inally  a  Jew  ;  but  as  il  was  anciently 
used  by  the  Gnostics,  there  can  be  little  doubt, 
that  the  author  when  he  wrote,  belonged  lo  some 
one  of  the  heretical  sects,  which  so  abounded  in  pri- 
mitive times. 

There  is  also  another  work,  wliicli  has  a  near  ai- 
iinity  with  this,  called,  Tub  Nativity  of  Ma- 
KV.  And  although  these  books  poss-ss  a  similar 
character  and  contain  many  things  in  common  ; 
yet  in  other  points  ihcy  are  contradictory  to  each 
other,  as  they  both  are,  to  the  Evangelical  his- 
tory. 

The  internal  evid"nce  is  itself  sufficient  to  satis- 
fy any  candij  reader  of  their  Apocryphal  charac- 
ter. * 

V.   The  largest  Apocryphal  gospel  extant,  is  en- 

*  Both  these  Apocryphal  works,  may  be  seen  in  the  sc- 
1,'ond  volume  of  Jones'  learned  work  on  the  Canon. 


32S 

titled.  The  Gosfel  of  our  Saviour's  Inpancv, 
There  is  also  remaining  a  fr>gment  t^f  a  g  sp^l  as- 
cribed to  Thomas,  which  probably  was,  originally, 
no  other  than  the  one  just  mentioned. 

These  gospels  were  never  supposed  to  be  Canon- 
ical by  any  Christian  writer.  They  were  forj^ed 
and  circulated  by  the  Gnostics,  and  altered  from 
time  to  time,  according  to  their  caprice. 

The  G  spel  of  our  Saviour's  Infancy,  seems  to 
have  been  known  to  Mohammed,  or  rather  to  his 
assistants  ;  for  occ  rding  to  his  own  account,  in 
the  Koran,  he  was  un  vble  to  read.  Many  of  the 
things  related  in  the  Koran,  respecting  Christiani- 
ty, are  from  tliis  Apocryphal  work. 

This  Gospel  is  condemned  by  almost  every  rule 
laid  down  for  the  detection  of  spurious  writings  ; 
and  if  all  other  evidence  were  wanting,  tlie  silly, 
trifling,  and  ludicrous  stories, with  which  it  is  stuff- 
ed, would  be  enou2;h  to  demonstrate,  that  it  was 
spurious  and  Apocryphal.  To  give  the  curious 
reader  an  opportunity  of  contrasting  these  Apocry- 
phal leg-nds  with  the  gravity  and  simplicity  of  the 
genuine  gospels,  I  have  inserted  some  of  the  mira- 
cles recorded  in  this  book,  at  the  end  of  the  vol- 
ume.* 

It  seems  highly  probable  that  this  gospel  of  the 
Saviour's  Infancy,  and  the  book  of  the  Nativity  of 
Mary?  were  originally  parts  of  the  same  work  ;  an 

'■  Sfte  Note  I- 


329 

evidence  of  which  is,  that  in  the  Koran,  there  is  a 
continued  ami  connected  story,  whicli  is  tHken 
partly  from  the  one,  and  partly  from  the  other  * 
The  same  thing  is  proved  by  ihefact,  that  Jerome, 
in  one  place,  speaks  of  a  preface  whicli  he  had  writ- 
ten to  the  gospel  of  our  Saviour's  Infancy,  in 
which  he  condemns  it,  bicaus*-  it  contradicts 
the  g  spel  of  John,  and  in  another  place,  he  uses 
the  same  words,  and  says  they  are  in  the  preface 
to  the  Nativity  of  Mary. 

Both  thfihc  Apocryphal  h(ioks  have  been  former- 
ly ascribed  to  Leucids  Charintis,  who  lived  in 
the  latter  part  bf  the  third  century,  and  who  ren- 
dered himself  famous,  by  forging  spurious  works, 
under  the  name  of  the  apostles. 

VI.  There  is  anoth.  rApocryphal  gospel.entitled, 
THE  Gospel  op  NiroDEMUs,  or,  the  Acrs  of 
Pilate,  which  was  probably  forsj;pd  about  the 
same  time,  as  the  one  last  treated  of,  and  it  is  very 
likely,  by  the  same  person. 

That  it  was  the  custom  for  the  governors  of 
provinces  in  the  Roman  Empire,  to  transmit  to 
the  emperors  an  account  of  all  remarkable  oc- 
cnrrencfts  under  their  government,  is  capable  of 
proof  from  the  Roman  history;  and  Eusebius  ex- 
pressly informs  us,  that  this  wns  customarv  ;  and 
Philo  JufloE'  s  speaks,  "  Of  the  daily  memoirs 
which  were  transmitted  to  Caligula,  from  Alexan- 
dria." 

*  See  Koran,  chap.  iii. 


330 

That  Pontius  Pilate  transmitted  some  account 
efthe  crucifixion  of  Christ,  and  of  Ins  wondeiful 
works,  is,  therefore,  in  itself,  highly  probable  ; 
but  it  is  rendered  certain,  by  the  public  appeal 
made  to  these  Acts  of  Pilate,  boih  by  Jttstin 
Martyr,  and  Terttlljan,  in  iheir  Apologies  ; 
the  one  addressed  to  the  Ronian  emperor,  Antom- 
wrs  Pius  ;  and  the  ottier,  pobiibly,  to  the  Roman 
Senate.  The  words  of  Justin  Martyr,  are,  "And 
of  the  truth  of  thv  se  farts  you  may  be  infoimed, 
out  of  the  Acrs  which  were  written  by  Pontius 
PiLAiE."  And  in  the  same  Apology,  he  r<  f  rs  to 
these  Acts  f  r  proof,  ''That  our  Saviour  cured 
all  sorts  of  diseases,  ai)d  raised  the  dead." 

T£Kii  i,LiAN,  in  two  placts  of  his  Apology,  ap- 

P'als  to  R,  CURDS    WHICH    WERE    TRANSMITTED    TO 

TiBEUius,  FROM  JERUSALEM.  His  testimony  is 
remarkable  in  both  places,  and  deserves  to  be 
transcribed;  "Tiberius,"  >ays  he.  "in  whose 
time  the  Christian  name  becanie  first  known  in 
the  world,  having;  received  information  from  Pal- 
estine, in  Syria,  that  Jesus  Christ  had  there  given 
manifest  proof  of  the  truth  of  his  divinity,  com- 
municated it  to  the  Senate,  insisting  upon  it  as  his 
prerogative,  that  they  should  assent  to  his  opinion 
in  that  matter  ;  but  the  Senate  not  approving  it, 
refused.  Caesar  continued  in  the  same  opinion^, 
threatening  those  who  were  accusers  of  the  Christ- 
ians." 

In  the  other  passage,  after  enumerating  many  of 


831 

the  miracles  of  Christ,  ho  adds,  <'  All  these  things, 
Pilatc  liimself,  who  was  in  iiis  onscii-  ice  fur  Ibl- 
lowinj;  Christ,  transmitied  to  Tibeiius  Caesar  ;  and 
even  the  Caestrs  themselves  had  been  Christians, 
if  it  had  been  consistent  with  thcr  secular  inte- 
rest." Both  Eusebins  and  Jerome,  cite  this  testi- 
mony of  Tertuili  »n,  as  authentic.  It  seems  there- 
fore certain,  that  some  account  of  Christ  and  his 
actions  was  transmitted  by  Pilate  to  the  emperor. 
**F()r,"  to  use  the  words  of  an  eminent  man, 
'*  Terlullian,  though  a  Christian  writer,  durst  never 
have  presumed  to  impose  upon  the  Seniite  them- 
selves, with  such  a  remirkable  story,  if  he  was 
not  able  to  prove  it  ;  and  that  he  was,  is  6'  ident 
from  Justin  M  iriyr,  who  often  appeals  to  the  Acts 
of  Pilate,  Concerning  thi'  history  of  our  Saviour — 
That  Pilate  did  send  niich  Acts  is  evident,  forsorce 
any  man,  much  less  such  a  man  as  Justin  M  irtyr, 
W(nild  have  been  so  foolish,  or  so  confident,  as  to 
affirm  a  thi.ig  in  v\hich  it  vvoulil  be  so  easy  to  con- 
vict him  of  falsehood.  "* 

Aiid  another,  speaking  of  'he  same  thing,  says, 
"  They  were  men  of  excellent  learning  and  judg- 
ment ;  but  no  man  who  could  write  an  Apology, 
can  be  supposf-d  to  hav<;  so  liitle  understanding,  as 
to  appeal  to  that  account  which  Pilate  sent  to  Tibe- 
rius, concrning  the  rcsurr'etion  of  Chnsi,  in  Apo- 
logies, dedicated  to   tiie  Rcunan  emperor  himself, 

■^  Dr.  Parker. 


332 

and  to  the  Senate,  if  no  such  account  had  ever 
been   sent."* 

It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  these  Fathers 
had  ever  seen  the  se  Acts,  or  that  they  were  ever 
seen  by  any  Christian.  During  the  reigns  of  Hea- 
then emperors.  Christians  could  have  no  access  to 
the  archives  of  the  nation  ;  but  the  fact  of  the  ex- 
istence of  such  a  record,  might  ha^■e  been,  and  pro- 
bably was  a  matt^er  of  public  not  .riety  ;  otherwise, 
we  never  can  account  for  the  confident  appeal  of  tliese 
learned  and  respectable  writers.  There  is  no  difficul- 
ty in  conceiving  how  such  a  fact  might  have  been  cer- 
tainly known  to  theseFathei  s,without  supposing  that 
they  had  seen  the  record.  As  the  learned  Casau- 
bon  s;iys,  ''  Some  servants  or  officers  of  one  of  the 
Caesars,  who  were  converted  to  Christianity,  and 
had  opportunity  of  searching  the  public  records  at 
Rome,  gave  this  account  to  some  Christians,  from 
whom  Justin  and  Tertullian  had  it." 

It  may  seem  to  be  an  objection  to  the  existence 
of  such  Acts,  that  the}'  were  never  made  public, 
when  the  emperors  became  Christian  ;  but  it  is  alto- 
gether probable,  that  they  were  destroyed  through 
the  malice  of  tiie  Senate,  or  of  some  Ron-.an  Empe- 
ror who  was  hostile  to  Ci.ristianity.  They  who 
took  so  much  pains  to  destroy  the  writings  of  Chris- 
tians, w  )uld  not  sufl'er  such  a  monument  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity  to  remain,  in  their  own  palace. 

•  Dr.  Jenkin. 


33S 

But  as  to  those  Acts  of  Pilate  which  are  now 
uxtani,  ao  one  supposes  that  th  y  ar*;  genuine. 
They  have  every  mark  of  bring  spurious.  Tlie  ex- 
ternal and  internal  evidence  is  cqudly  against 
them  ;  and  it  would  be  a  watste  of  time  to  enter  in- 
to any  discussion  of  this  point. 

It  may,  however,  be  worth  while  to  enquire  into 
the  motives  wliich  probably  led  some  mistaken 
Christian,  to  forge  such  a  narrative.  And  there 
seem  to  have  been  two  ;  first,  to  have  it  in  his 
power,  to  show  the  record,  to  which  the  Fathers 
had  so  confidently  referred.  The  Heathen  adver- 
saries might  say,  after  the  destruction  of  the  gena- 
ine  Acts  of  Pilate,  where  is  the  document  to  which 
this  appeal  has  been  made,  let  it  be  produced. 
And  some  man  thinking  that  he  could  serve  the 
cause  of  Christianity,  by  forging  Acts  under  the 
name  of  Pilate,  was  induced  through  a  mistaken 
zeal,  to  write  this  narrative. 

But  there  was  another  reason  which  probably 
had  some  influence  on  this  fact.  About  the  close 
of  the  third  century,  the  Heathen  had  forged  and 
published  a  writing,  called  rnio  Acts  of  Pilate, 
the  object  of  which  was,  to  render  tlie  Christians 
odious  and  contemptible  to  the  public,  by  foul  ca- 
lu:nnies  against  their  Founder  and  his  ipostles.  Of 
tliis  fact,  EiisEBius  gives  us  express  and  particular 
inf  irmation  ^  "  From  whence,"  says  he,  '•  the  for- 
gery of  these  is  manifestly  detected,  who  have  late- 
ly published  certain  Acts,  against  our  Saviour.  In 
p   F 


334 

which,  lirst,  the  very  time  which  it>  assis;iied  to 
them,  discovers  the  imposture  ;  for  those  things 
which  they  have  impudently  forged  to  have  come 
to  pass  at  our  Saviour's  crucifixion^  are  said  to 
have  occurred  in  the  fourth  consulship  of  Tiberius, 
which  coincides  with  the  seventh  of  his  reign  ;  at 
which  time,  it  is  certain,  Pilate  was  not  yet  come 
into  Judea  ;  if  any  credit  is  due  to  Josephus,  who 
expressly  says,  that  Pilate  was  not  constituted  go- 
vernor of  Judea,  until  the  twelfth  year  of  Tibe- 
rius."* 

And  in  another  place,  he  says,  *'  Seeing  therefore 
that  this  writer,  (Josephus)  who  was  himself  a  Jew, 
has  related  such  things  in  his  history  concerning 
John  the  Baptist  and  the  Saviour,  what  can  they 
possibly  say  for  themselves,  to  prevent  being  con- 
victed of  the  most  impudent  forgery,  who  wrote 
those  things  against  John  and  Christ." 

And  in  the  ninth  book  of  his  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, this  writer  gives  us  informntion,  still  more 
particular,  respecting  this  malicious  forgery.  "At 
length  (the  Heathen)  having  forged  certain  Acts  of 
Pilate,  concerning  our  Saviour,  which  were  full  oi 
•all  sorts  of  blasphemy  against  Christ,  they  caused 
them,  by  the  decree  of  Maximinus,  to  be  dispersed 
through  all  parts  of  the  empire;  commanding  by 
letters,  that  they  should  he  published  to  all  persons, 
in  every  place,  both  in  cities  and  country  places : 

-*  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist  Lib.  L  c.  9,  1 1 . 


335 

and  that  schoolmasters  should  put  them  into  the 
hands  of  their  children,  and  oblifre  them  to  learn 
tJieni  by  heart,  instead  of  their  usual  lessons." 

Here  it  may  be  observed,  that  while  this  impu- 
dent for2;ery  clearly  shows  with  what  malicious 
efforts  the  attempt  was  made  to  subvi;rt  the  gctspel, 
it  proves  at  the  same  time,  that  there  had  existed  a 
document  under  the  name  of^  The  Acts  of  Pi- 
late. 

Now,  the  circulation  of  such  aA  impious  piece  of 
blasphemy,  probably  instigated  Chakincs,  or  who- 
ever was  the  author  of  these  Acts,  to  counteract 
them  by  a  work  of  another  kind,  under  the  same 
name. 

How  this  book  came  to  be  called,  The  Gospel 
OF  NicoDEMUs,  will  appear  by  the  subscription 
annexed  to  it,  in  which  it  is  said,  "The  empe- 
ror Theddosius  the  g;reat,  fout)d  at  Jerusalem, 
in  the  hall  of  Pontius  Pilate,  among  the  public  re- 
cords ; — the  things  vvliich  were  transacted  in  the 
nineteenth  year  of  Tiberius  Cajsar,  emperor  of  the 
Romans — being  a  History  written  in  Hebrew  by 
N'codemus,  of  what  happened  after  our  Saviour's 
crucifixion."  And  if  this  subscription  be  no  part 
of  the  original  work,  still  it  may  have  occasioned 
this  title;  or,  it  may  have  originated  in  the  fact^ 
that  much  is  said  about  Nicodemus,  in  the  story 
which  is  here  told. 

But  even  if  we  had  the  original  Acts  of  Pilate, 
or  some  History  of  Nicodemus,   it  needs  no  proof 


J 


336 

that  they  could  have  no  just  claim  to  a  place  in  the 
Capor. 

VII.  The  last  Apocryphal  book,  which  I  shall 
mention,  is  that  entitled  The  Acts  op  Paul  and 
Thkcla. 

There  is  no  doubt,  but  that  this  book  is  Apocry- 
phal. It  was  so  considered  by  all  the  Fathers, 
who  have  mentioned  it. 

Tertitllian  says,  respecting  it  ;  "But  if  any 
read  the  Apocryphal  books  of  Paul,  and  thence  de- 
fend the  right  of  women  to  teach  and  baptize,  by 
the  example  of  Thecla,  let  them  consider,  that  a 
certain  presb)^tpr  of  Asia,  who  forged  that  book, 
under  the  name  of  Paul,  being  convicted  of  the 
forgery,  confessed  that  he  did  it  out  of  respect  to 
Paul,  and  so  left  his  place."* 

And  Jerome,  in  his  life  of  Luke,  says,  *'  The 
Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla,  with  the  whole  sto- 
ry of  the  baptized  lion^  I  reckon  among  the  Apoc- 
ryphal Scriptures." 

And  in  the  decree  of  pope  Gelasius,  it  is 
asserted,  **  That  the  Acts  of  Thecla  and  Paul  are 
Apocryphal." 

It  is  manifest,  however, that  the  primitive  Christ- 
ians gave  credit  to  a  story  respecting  Paul  andThec- 
la,  on  which  this  book  is  founded  ;  for  it  is  often 
referred  to,  as  a  history  well  known,  and  common- 
ly believed. 

"  Tertnll.  De  Baptismo. 


337 

ThuSfCTPRiAN,  or  some  anrient  writrr  unrlcr  his 
name,  says,  '*  Help  us,  0  Lord,  as  ihou  ditlst  help 
the  apostles,in  theirimpnsonTnents,THECLA  amidst 
tlio  ftamcs,  Paul  in  his  persecutions,  and  Peter 
amidst  the  waves  of  the  sea." 

And  again,  "  Deliver  me,  0  Lord,  as  thou  didst 
deliver  Tliecla,  when  in  the  midst  ©f  the  am- 
phitheatre, slve  was  in  conflict  with  the  wil-d 
beasts." 

EusEBiTTS  mentions  a  woman  by  tliis  name,  but 
he  places  her  lono;  after  fhe  apostle  Paul,  and  she  is 
therefore  supposed  to  be  another  person. 

EpiPiiANius  relates,  **  That  when  Thecla  met 
Paul  she  determined  against  marriage,  although  she 
was  then  engaged  to  a  very  agreeable  youngj 
mafl."* 

AuousTiNE  refers  to  the  same  thing,  and  say?, 
*^  By  a  discourse  of  Paul's,  at  Iconium,  he  incited 
Thecla  to  a  resolution  of  perpetual  virginity,  al- 
though siie  was  then  actually  engaged  to  be  mar- 
ried." 

Many  others  of  the  Fathers  speak  of  Thecla, 
as  of  a  person  whose  history  was  vvell  known. 

And  among  the  moderns,  Baronius,  Locrinus, 
and  Gral)e,  look  upon  this  history  as  true  and  gen- 
uine, written  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  containing 
nothing  superstitious,  or  unsuitable  to  that  time. 
But  none  have  ventured  to  assert,  that  these  Acts 
ought  to  have  a  place  in  the  Canon. 

♦  Epiph.  liter.  Ixviii. 
P   P  2 


3S6 

No  doubt,  the  book  now  extant,  is  greatly  altered 
from  that  ancient  history,  referred  to  by  the  Fa- 
thers ;  and  probably,  the  original  story  was  found- 
ed on  some  tradition,  which  had  a  foundation  in 
truth  ;  but  what  the  truth  is,  it  is  impossible  now 
to  discover  among  snch  a  mass  of  fables,  and  ridi- 
culous stories,  as  the  book  contains.  As  it  now 
stands,  it  contains  numerous  things,  which  are  false 
in  fact;  others,  which  are  inconsistent  with  the  Ca- 
nonical Scriptures  ;  and  some,  totally  incompatible 
with  the  true  character  of  Paul.  Moreover  it  is 
favourable  to  several  superstitious  practices,  which 
had  no  existence  in  the  apostles'  days;  and  finally, 
the  forgery  was  acknowledged,  as  it  relates  to  the 
ancient  Acts  ;  and  those  now  existing,  cannot  be 
more  genuine  than  the  original  ;  but  to  these  many 
things  have  been  added,  of  a  silly  and  superstitiou'^ 


C^K^Z. 


SEOTIOM'      XVI. 

— ♦©©»»— 

NO  PART  OF  THR  CHRISTIAN  REVELATION  HANOEb 
DOWN   BY  UNWRITTEN    TRADI  I'lON. 

In  the  former  part  of  this  work,  it  was  seen, 
that  it  was  not  only  necessriry  to  show,  that  the 
Apocryphal  writingrg  had  no  right  to  a  place  in 
the  Sacred  Volume,  hut  that  there  was  no  addi- 
tional revelation  which  had  been  handed  down, 
by  oral  tradition.  The  same  necessity  devolves 
upon  us,  in  relation  to  the  New  Testament ;  for 
while  it  is  pretty  generally  aajreed,  by  all  Christ- 
ians, what  books  should  be  received  into  the  Canon, 
there  is  a  large  Society  which  strenuously  main- 
tains, that  besides  the  revelation  contained  in 
the  divine  record,  written  by  the  apostles  and 
their  assistants  by  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  there  is  a  further  revelation,  consist- 
ing of  such  things  as  were  received  from  the 
mouth  of  Christ  himself  while  upon  earth,  or 
taught  to  the  churches  by  his  inspired  apostles, 
which  were  not  by  them,  nor  in  their  time,  com- 
mitted to  writing,  but  which  have  come  down  to 
us  by  unbroken  tradition. 

The  importance  of  this  inquiry,  is  exceedingly 
manifest :  for  if,  in  addition  to  the  written  word. 


340 

there  are  important  doctrines,  and  necessary  sacra- 
ments of  tne  cliuich,  which  have  come  down  by 
traditioii  ;  it  would  be  a  perilous  thing  for  us  to 
remain  ignorant  of  those  thino;s,  which  God  has 
enjoined,  or  to  deprive  ourselves  of  the  benefits 
to  be  derived  from  those  means  of  grace  which 
he  has  instituted  for  the  edification  and  salvation 
of  the  church.  But,  seeing  traditions  are  much 
more  liable  to  alteration  and  corruption  than  writ- 
ten documents,  it  is  very  necessary  that  we  should 
be  on  our  guard  against  imposition  ;  and  if  it  is  a 
duty  to  exercise  much  care  and  diligence,  in  dis- 
tinguishing between  inspired  books  and  such  as 
are  spurious,  it  cannot  be  less  incumbent,  to  ascer- 
tain first,  whether  any  part  of  God's  revealed  will 
has  been  handed  down  by  tradition  only  ;  and 
next,  to  learn  accurately,  what  those  things  are, 
which  have  been  thus  communicated.  And  as 
there  are  Apocryphal  books  which  claim  a  place 
in  the  Canon ;  so,  doubtless  there  would  be  Apoc- 
ryphal traditions,  if  any  truths  had  been  conveyed 
to  the  church,  through  this  channel.  But  if  there 
be  no  satisfactory  evidence  of  any  such  revelation 
having  come  down  to  us  ;  nor  any  possibility  of 
ascertaining  what  proceeded  from  the  apostles,  and 
what  from  the  fancy  and  superstition  of  men,  th^n 
we  are  right  in  refusing  the  high  claims  of  tradi- 
tion, and  adhering  inflexibly  to  the  written  word, 
which  is  able,  through  faith,  to  make  us  wise 
unto  salvation. 


341 

This  doctrine  of  traditions,  is  most  convenient 
and  favoiirahle  to  the  church  of  Rome,  in  all  her 
controversies  with  Protestants  and  others ;  for 
whatever  she  may  assert,  as  an  article  of  faith,  or 
tearh  as  a  part  of  Christian  duty,  althousjh  there 
be  no  vestipje  of  it  in  the  word  of  God,  may  rea- 
dily be  established  by  tradition.  For  as  the  church 
alone  has  the  keepinsj  of  this  body  of  oral  law,  she 
only  is  the  proper  judge  of  what  it  contains,  and 
indeed  can  make  it  to  suit  herself.  If  we  shoidd 
concede  to  the  Romanists  what  they  claim,  on  this 
point,  the  controversy  with  them,  migjht  well  be 
brought  to  an  end  ;  and  all  we  should  have  to  do, 
wouW  be,  to  yield  implicit  faith  to  whatever  they 
miffht  please  to  teach  us.  And  even  if  we  should 
be  required  to  believe  and  practise,  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  the  plain  declarations  of  Holy  Scripture; 
yet,  as  the  true  interpretation  of  Scripture,  on  this 
plan,  is  only  in  the  hands  of  the  infallibir.  head  of 
the  church,  and  is  indeed  understood  by  means  of 
unwritten  traditions,  we  must  not  trust  to  our  own 
understanding  in  the  most  evident  matters,  nor 
even  to  our  own  senses,  although  several  of  them 
should  concur  in  giving  us  notice  of  some  fact. 
Now, before  we  give  ourselves  up  to  be  led  bhndly 
in  such  a  way  as  this,  it  behoves  us,  diligrntly 
and  irn|)artial!y,  to  inquire,  wiiethcr  God  has  re- 
quired of  us,  this  implicit  subm  ^^ion  to  men.  VVe 
ought  tt)  be  assured,  that  their  suthoiity  over  our 
faith  and  conscience,   has  a  divine  warrant   for  its 


348 

exercise ;  and  especially,  we  should  be  satisfied, 
on  sufficient  grounds,  that  these  unwritten  tradi- 
tions, on  which  the  whole  fabric  rests,  are  truly 
the  commands  of  God  ;  for  if  they  are  not,  we 
have  the  hi<j;hest  authority  for  rejectinj^  them.  And 
if  their  claim  to  a  divitie  origin  cannot  he  made 
out  clearly,  they  cannot,  in  reason,  bind  us  to  obe- 
dience ;  for,  when  God  gives  a  law,  he  promul- 
gates it  with  sufficient  clearness,  that  all  wliom  it 
concerns,   may  know  what  is  required  of  them. 

To  exhibit  fairly,  the  true  point  of  controversy 
on  this  subject,  it  will  be  requisite  to  make  seve- 
ral preliminary  observations,  that  it  may  be  clear- 
ly understood  what  we  admit,  and  what  we  de- 

1.  In  the  first  place,  then,  it  is  readily  admit- 
ted, that  a  law  revealed  from  Heaven  and  com- 
municated to  us,  orally^  with  clear  evidence  of 
its  origin,  is  as  binding,  as  if  written  ever  so  of- 
ten. When  God  uttered  the  ten  commandments, 
on  Mount  Sinai,  in  the  midst  of  thunderings  and 
lightnings,  it  surely  was  as  obligatory  on  the 
hearers,  as  after  He  had  written  them  on  tables  of 
stone. 

It  is  a  dictate  of  common  sense,  that  it  is  a  matter 
of  indifference,  how  a  divine  revelation  is  Com- 
municated, provided  it  come  to  us  properly  au- 
thenticated. 

2.  Again,  it  is  conceded,  that  for  a  long  time, 
there  was  no  other  method  of  transmitting  the  re- 


343 

velations  received  from  Heaven,  from  sjeneration 
to  generation,  but  by  oral  tradition,  and  sucb  ex- 
ternal memorials,  as  aided  in  keeping  up  tbe  re- 
membrance of  important  transactions.  As  far  as 
appears,  books  were  unknown,  and  letters  not  in 
use,  until  a  considerable  time  after  the  flood.  Du- 
ring the  long  period  which  preceded  the  time  of 
Moses,  all  revelations  must  have  been  handed 
down  by  tradition.  But,  while  this  concession  is 
willingly  made,  it  ought,  in  connexion,  to  be  re- 
marked, that  this  mode  was  then  used,  because  no 
other  existed  ;  and  that,  in  the  early  ages  of  the 
world,  the  longevity  of  tlie  patriarchs,  rendered 
that  a  comparatively  safe  channel  of  communica- 
tion, which  would  now  be  most  uncertain  ;  and 
not.vithstanding  this  advantage,  the  fact  was,  that 
in  every  instance,  as  far  as  we  are  informed,  in 
which  divine  truth  was  committed  to  tradition,  it 
was  utterly  lost;  or  soon  became  so  corrupted  by 
foreign  mixtures,  that  it  was  impossible  to  ascer- 
tain what  part  of  the  mass  contained  a  revelation 
from  God.  It  is  therefore  the  plausible  opinion  of 
some,  that  writing  was  revealed  from  heaven,  for  the 
very  purpose  of  avoiding  the  evil  which  had  been 
experienced, an<l  that  tliere  might  be  a  certain  vi-hi- 
cle  for  all  divine  communications:  and  it  is  certain, 
that  all  that  we  know  of  the  history  of  alpbal)etical 
writing,  leads  us  to  connect  its  origin  with  tiie 
commencement  of  wrii-ten    revelations. 

It  is  therefore  not  an  improbable  supposition,  that 


344 

■God  taught  letters  to  Moses,  for  the  express  pui- 
pose  of  conveying,  by  tliis  means,  his  iaw>,  to  dis- 
tant ages,  without  alteration;  and  it  deserves  to  be 
well  considered,  that  after  the  command  was  given 
to  Moses,  to  write  in  a  book  the  laws  and  statutes 
delivered  to  him,  nothing  was  left  to  oral  tradition, 
as  has  been  shown  in  the  former  par4;  of  tliis  work. 

3.  It  will  be  granted  also,  that  tradition,  especial- 
ly when  connected  with  external  memurials,is  suffi- 
cient to  transmit,  through  a  long  lapse  of  time,  the 
knowledge  of  particular  events,  or  of  transactions 
of  a  Vf^ry  simple  nature. 

Thus,  it  may  be  admitted,  that  if  thegopels  had 
not  come  down  to  us,  we  might  by  tradition  be 
assured,  that  Christ  instituted  the  Kucharist,  as  a 
memorial  of  his  death  ;  for,  from  the  time  of  its 
institution,  it  has,  in  every  successive  age,  and  in 
many  countries,  been  celebrated  to  perpetuate  the 
remembrance  of  that  event.  And  it  is  not  credi- 
ble, that  such  a  tradition  should  be  uniform,  at  all 
times,  and  every  where,  and  be  connected  with 
the  same  external  rite,  if  it  was  not  founfled  in 
fact.  Besides,  the  thing  handed  down,  in  this  in- 
stance, is  so  simple  in  its  nature,  that  there  was  no 
room  for  mistake. 

There  is  one  fact,  for  the  truth  of  which,  we 
depend  entirely  on  tradition,  so  far  as  external  tes- 
timony is  concerned,  and  that  is  the  truth  which 
in  this  work  we  have  been  attempting  to  establish, 
^at  the  books  of  tlie  New  Testament  were  writ- 


345 

ten  by  the  persons  undei-  whose  names  they  have 
come  down  to  us.  Tlii.s  fact  is  incapable  oi"  lieiiig 
proved  from  ihe  Scripiures,  because  we  niusi  first 
be  assured  ihat  they  contain  the  testimony  of  in- 
spired men,  befure  we  can  prove  any  thing  by 
them.  The  point  to  be  c>tal)lished  here,  is,  that 
the  aposth'S  wrote  tiiese  books.  If  it  yvtre  ever 
so  often  a.sserted  m  a  book,  that  a  certain  person 
was  its  author,  this  would  not  be  sati.sfactory  evi- 
dence of  its  genuineness,  because  any  impostor 
can  write  what  f;ds.'hoo>ls  he  pleases  in  a  hook, 
and  may  a>cribt'  it  to  whom  he  will  ;  as  in  f;ict, 
many  have  written  spurious  works,  aid  a->cribed 
them  to  the  apostles.  We  must  therefore  have 
the  fe^timony  of  (hose  who  had  the  oppnrtuniiy 
of  judging  uf  the  fait,  given  either  ex|;licitly,  or 
inijjlicitly.  In  njost  cases,  whore  a  book  is  pub- 
lished under  the  name  of  some  certain  author,  in 
Ihf  co'iiitry  in  wliich  he  lived  and  was  known,  a 
general,  >ilent  acquiescence  in  the  fiict,  b\  the  peo- 
pl-''  of  that  age  and  cmititry,  w  itti  tlie  cohsent  of 
all  tliat  came  after  them,  may  be  consiilen  d  as  sa- 
tisfactory evidence  of  thf  giuuineness  of  such  book. 
But  wliere  much  dt-pends  on  the  certainty  oi  (he 
fact  in  question,  it  is  nt'cessary  to  have  positive 
testimony  ;  and  in  order  that  it  be  satisfactory,  it 
should  be  univ-  isal,  and  uncontradicied.  When, 
thenfore,  a  certMiu  viinnie  is  expieS'ly  received 
as  the  work  of  certain  individuals,  by  all  v\h  lived 
at  or  near  tiie  lime  when  h  was  published,  and  ail 


346 

succeeding  writings  concur  in  ascribing  it  to  the 
same  persons,  and  not  a  solitary  voice  is  raised 
in  contradiction,  the  evidence  of  its  genuineness, 
seems  to  be  as  complete  as  the  nature  of  the  case 
admits.  Just  such  is  the  eviilence  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  ;  or,  at 
least,  of  most  of  them.  It  is,  however,  the  evi- 
dence of  tradition;  but  of  such  a  tradition,  as  is 
abundantly  sufficient  to  establish  a  fact  of  this  sort. 
The  thing  attested  is  most  simple  in  its  nature,and  not 
liable  to  be  misunderstood.  This  necessity  of  tra- 
dition to  establish  the  authenticity  of  the  bot>ks 
of  the  New  Testament,  has  been  made  a  sfreat 
handle  of,  by  the  Romanists,  in  the  defence  of 
their  favourite  doctrine.  They  pretend,  that 
the  point  which  we  have  here  conceded,  is  aH 
that  is  necessary  to  establish  their  whole  system, 
on  the  firmest  foundation.  They  argue,  that  if  we 
must  receive  the  Scriptures  themselves,  by  tradi- 
tion, much  more  other  things.  Indeed,  they  as- 
cribe all  the  authority  which  the  Scriptures  pos- 
sess, to  the  testimony  of  the  church,  without 
which,  they  assert,  that  they  would  deserve  no 
more  credit  than  any  other  writinos.  But,  be- 
cause a  single  fact,  incapable  of  proof  in  any  other 
way,  must  be  received  by  tradition,  it  does  not 
follow,  that  numerous  other  matters  which  might 
easily  have  been  recorded,  must  be  learned  in  the 
same  manner.  Because  a  document  requires  oral 
testimony  to  establish   its  authenticity,   it  is    nof: 


347 

therefore  necessary  to  prove  the  iruth  oi  tlie  mat- 
ters contained  in  that  record,  by  the  same  means. 
The  very  purpose  of  written  records,  is,  to  prevent 
the  necessity  of  trusting  to  the  uncertainty  of 
tradition  ;  and  as  to  the  allegation,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures owe  their  authority  to  tiie  church,  it  amounts 
to  no  more  than  liiis,  which  we  freely  admit,  that 
it  is  by  the  testimony  of  the  early  Fathers,  that 
we  are  assured  that  these  writings  are  the  produc- 
tions of  the  apostles  ;  and  it  is  true,  that  most  of 
those  witnesses  who  have  given  testimony,  were 
members  of  the  Catholic  church.  But  our  confi- 
dence in  their  testimony,  on  this  point,  is  not  be- 
cause they  were  members  of  the  church,  but  be- 
cause they  lived  in  times  and  circumstances,  fa- 
vourable to  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  fact 
which  they  report.  And  accordingly,  we  admit 
the  testimony  of  those  who  were  out  of  the  church; 
yea,  of  its  bitterest  enemies,  to  the  same  fact, 
an<i  on  some  accounts,  judge  it  to  be  the  most  un- 
€Xceptional)le.  While  we  weigh  this  evidence, 
it  would  be  absurd  to  make  its  validity  depend  on 
tlve  witnvsses  being  members  of  the  church  ;  for 
that  would  be  to  determine,  that  the  church  was 
divine  and  infallible,  before  we  had  ascertained 
that  the  Scriptures  were  the  word  of  God.  Sure- 
ly, if  on  examination,  it  had  turned  out,  that  the 
Scripiurcs  were  not  inspired,  the  authority  of  the 
Christian  church  would  have  been  worth  nothing  : 
and   therefore,   previously  to  the  decision  on  thif 


34a 

pomt,   we  cannot  defer  any  thing  to  the  authority 
of  the  church.     The  truth  is,  that  the  wiin»  sses  be- 
ino-  of  the  church,  is,   in  this  inquiry,   merely  an 
incidental  circumstance.     A   sufficient  mimbnr'of 
competent    and    credible   witnesses,    not     of    (he 
church,  would  establish  the  fact  just  as  well  as  th<se 
who  have  given  testimony  ;  and,  as  was  before  ob- 
served,  such   testimony,    on  the  score  of  freedom 
from  all  partiality,  has  the  advantage.     The  testi- 
mony of  Jews  and  Heathen,  has,  on  this  account, 
been  demanded  by   infidels,    and   has  been  suught 
for  with  avidity  by  the  defenders  of  Christianity, 
and  in  the  view  of  all  considerate  men,  is  of  great 
weight.     But  it  is  not  just  to  ascribe  the  authority 
of  these  books   to  the  church,  because  the  greater 
number  of  the  witnesses  of  their  apusiolical  origin, 
were  members  of  the    church.      The  law  enacted 
by  the  Supreme  Legislature  of  the  State,  does  not 
owe   its  authority  to  the  men  who  attest  its  genu- 
ineness.     It   is  true,    it  would  not  be  known  cer- 
tainly  to  be  a  law,    without    the  attestation,   but 
it    would   be    absurd   to  ascribe   the   authority    of 
the  law   to   the  persons   whose  testimony  proved 
that   it  was  really  a  law  of  the  State.      The  cases 
are  exactly   parallel.      The  Scriptures   cannot  owe 
their  authority  to   the   church,    for  without   them, 
the  church  can   have   no  authority  ;  and  although 
she  may,  and  does    give    ample  tfstimony  in   fa- 
vour of  their  divine  origin,  this  confers  no  autho- 
rity on  them  ;  it  only  proves  to  us,  that  they  have 


349 

authority,  which  is  derivecl  from  the  spirit  of  God, 
by  whom  thev  wf-re  indited.  It  is  truly  won- 
derful, how  this  |>l;iin  case  h:is  been  perplexed 
and  darkened,  by  the  artittce  and  sophistry  of  the 
wril(;rs  of  tlic  church  of  Rome. 

But  if  it  be  insi>ted,  that  if  we  admit  tradition  as 
sufficient  evidence  of  a  fact  in  one  case,   we  ought 
to  do    so    in   every  other,    where  the    tradition  is 
as  clear.      We  ans^ver,  that  t »  this  we  have  no  ob- 
jection, provided  this  species  of  proof  be  as  neces- 
sary,   and  as   clear   in  the  one  case   as  the   other. 
Let  any  other  fact  be  shown  to  be  as  fully  attest- 
ed,  as  the  genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  to  need  this  kind  of  proof  as  much, 
and    we    will   not  hesitate  to   receive   it  as  true, 
whatever  may  be  the  consequence.      But  the  very 
fact  which   we   have  been   cotisiderin^jj,   seems  to 
raise   a  sironsj  pi'esumption   a^ninst   the    necessit}"^ 
of  depending  on  tradition  for  any  thing  else.     Why 
were  these  books  written  ?     Was  it  not  to  convey 
to    us,  and   to   all   future  ages,   the    revelations  oi 
God  to  man  ?     Because  it  is  necessary  to  authen- 
ticate, by  testimony,  this  record,  must  we  depend 
on   the   same    testimony    for   information    on  the 
points  of  which  the   record   treats  ?     Surely   not. 
For  the  proof  of  these  we  have  nothing  to  do,  but 
refer  to  the  document  it^clf:  otherwise,  the  pos- 
session of  written  records    would  be  useless.      If, 
indeed,  a  dotibt  should  arise  about  the  meaning  oi 
aomelhiug  in  the  record,  it  would  not  be  unreason- 

G    G    2 


350 

able  to.inquire,how  it  bad  been  understood  and  prac- 
tised on,  by  those  wlio  received  it  at  first;  butif  >ve 
should  find  a  society  acting  in  direct  opposition  to  a 
written  charter,  on  which  their  existence  depended, 
and  pretending  to  prove  that  they  were  right, by  ap- 
pealing from  the  written  documents  to  vague  tra- 
ditions, all  sensible  men,  not  interested,  would 
Judge  that  the  case  was  a  very  suspicious  one. 

4.  We  are,  moreover,  ready  to  acknowledge, 
that  the  gospel  was,  at  first,  for  several  years,  com- 
municated orally,  by  the  apostles  and  their  assis- 
tants. The  churches  when  first  planted,  had  no 
written  gospels  ;  they  received  the  same  truths, 
now  contained  in  the  Gbspels  and  Epistles,  by  the 
preaching  of  the  apostles  and  others;  and  doubtless 
were  as  well  instructed  as  those  churches  which 
have  had  possession  of  the  whole  inspired  volume. 
And  what  they  had  thus  received,  without  book, 
they  could  communicate  to  others  ;  and  thus,  if  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles  had  never  been  written,  the 
Christian  religion  might  have  been  transmitted 
from  generation  to  generation.  Then  it  may  be 
asked,  why  the  wriling  of  these  books  should  hin- 
der the  transmission  of  many  things  which  might 
not  be  contained  in  them,  to  future  generations  ? 
for  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  many  tinngs  were 
said  and  done  by  Christ,  which  were  not  recorded 
in  the  gospels  :  and  there  is  reason  to  think,  that 
the  apostles  were  mucli  fuller  in  their  sermons,  than 
in  their  writings  :  and  that  they  established  many 


351 

rules  for  the  good  order  and  government  of  the 
church,  of  Avhich,  we  have  in  their  Epistles,  either 
no  itccount,  uronly  brief  hints;  which  though  they 
might  be  readily  understood  by  those  who  had  re- 
ceived their  verbal  instructions,  are  insufTicient, 
without  tradition,  to  teach  us  what  rules  and  insti- 
tutions were  established  in  the  churches^  by  aposto- 
lical authority.  Now  if  these  were  transmitted  by 
tradition, to  the  next  generation, and  by  them  to  the 
following,  and  so  on,  in  an  uninterrupted  series  un- 
til the  present  time,  are  we  not  as  much  bound  to 
receive  such  traditions,  and  be  governed  by  them, 
as  by  the  written  u  ord  ? 

I  have  now  presented  the  argument  ia  favour  of 
traditions,  in  the  strongest  light,  in  which  I  am 
able  to  place  it  ;  and  it  would  be  uncandid  not  to 
admit,  that  it  wears  at  first  sight  a  face  of  plausibi- 
litv  ;  and  if  the  whole  case  as  here  stated,  could  be 
made  out  with  satisfactory  evidence,  I  think  we 
should  be  constrained  to  receive,  to  some  extent, 
this  oral  law  of  the  Romish  church.  But  before 
any  man  can  reasanably  be  req'iired  to  rest  his  faith 
on  tradition,  he  h:is  a  right  to  be  satisfied  on  seve- 
ral important  points  ;  as,  whether  it  was  th'^  pur- 
pose of  God  to  permit  any  part  of  the  revelation 
intended  for  the  use  of  the  church,  in  all  future 
ages,to  be  handed  down  by  traditon,  For,as  he  di- 
rected every  thing  in  the  law  given  at  Mount  Si- 
nai, intended  to  regulate  the  faith  and  practice  of 
the  Israelites,  to  be  committed  to  writing,  by  Mo- 


353 

ses,  it  is  no  how  improbable  that  the  same  plan  was 
pujsue'l,  in  regiri  to  tiie  writini:;s  of 'h^^  Nt^w  Co- 
venait;  especially,  when  it  is  consi  ierrd,  how 
much  superior  written  communic::>tii>iis  are  to  ver- 
bal, as  it  respects  accuracy.  When  a  chaanel 
for  conveying  the  truth  had  been  provided,  calcu- 
lated to  preserve  all  communications  from  corrup- 
tion; and  when  it  is  acknowledged,  th  t  this 
was  user!  for  a  part  of  the  matter  to  be  tran^miued, 
how  can  it  be  accounted  for,  that  another  part 
should  be  committed  to  the  uncertainty  of  oral 
tradition  ?  Why  not  commit  the  whole  to  wri- 
ting ? 

But  it  is  incumbent  on   the  advocates   of  tradi- 
tion to  show  by  undoubted  proofs,  that  what  they 
say  has  come  do\An  by  tradition,  was  really  receiv- 
ed from  the  mouth  of  Christ,  or  from  the  teaching 
of  his    apostles.      As    they  wish  to    claim  for    this 
rule  an  aithority  fully  equal  to  that  which  is  given 
to  the  Scriptures,  they  ougiit  to  be  able  to  produce 
the  very  tvords,  in  which   these  instructions   w^re 
given.     But   this  they   do  not  pretend  to   do.      It 
may  be  said,   indeed,   that   vvords  and   sentences, 
in  their  just  order  and  connexion,  cannot  be  convey- 
ed by  tradition,  and  therefore  this  demanrd   is  un- 
reasoiiable.     I  answer,   that  this  allegation  is  most 
true,  but  instead  of  making  in  favour  of  traditions, 
it  is  a  strong  argument  to  prove,  that  nothing  thus 
received,  can  be  of  equal   certainly  and  authodty 
with  the   written  word.     When  an  article  of  faith 


f5S 

ispropospd,  which  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures^ 
we  can  turn  to  the  sacred  text,  and  read  the  words 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles;  and  may  he  assnrrd, 
tlial  they  express  the  truth  contained  in  said  article; 
but  if  an  article  of  faith  he  asserted  to  have  come 
down  by  tradition,  we  have  no  opportunity  of 
knowing  the  words  in  whieh  it  was  expressed:  for, 
while  it  is  pretended  that  the  doctrine  or  instruct- 
ion has  reached  us,  the  words  have  been  lost  ;  for 
what  advociite  of  traditions  is  able,  in  any  single 
case,  to  furnish  us  with  the  words  of  any  divine 
revelation,  which  is  not  contained  in  the  Sacred 
Scriptures? 

But  it  is  essential  to  the  credit  of  traditions, 
that  it  be  proved  clearly,  that  those  articles  of  re- 
ligion, or  institutions  of  worship,  said  to  be  receiv- 
ed fron)  this  source,  have  indeed  been  handed 
down  without  alteration  or  corruption,  from  Christ 
and  hisaposiles.  It  is  not  suflBcient,  that  they  have 
been  Ions:  received  and  have  now  the  sanction  of 
the  belief  and  practice  of  (he  whole  Catholic  church; 
it  oua;hl  to  be  shown, that  they  have  always,  from  the 
very  days  of  the  apostles,  been  received  with  uni- 
versal consent.  We  know  that  the  (-hurch  has  un- 
dergone many  vicissitudes;  that  she  has  sometimes 
been  almost  extirpated  by  the  sword  of  peisecution; 
has  been  overrun  with  d;ingerous  errors  ;  has  been 
ovf-rwhelmed  with  the  darkness  of  Gothic  igno- 
rance ;  and  we  believe,  has  greatly  apostatized  from 
purity  of  doctrine   and  worship  ;  and  this   accords 


354 

with  the  prophecy  of  Paul,  who  clearly  intimates, 
that  a  time  would  come,  when  there  should  be  a 
falling  away.  Now  it  may  have  happened,  that 
during  this  long  period  of  adversity,  heresy,  dark- 
ness, and  corruption,  many  things  may  have 
crept  in,  and  may  have  obtained* an  extensive 
and  firm  footing,  which  were  totally  unknown 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  or  in  the  primitive 
church  ;  and  that  this  has  in  fact  occurred,  we  are 
not  left  to  conjecture.  It  is  a  matter  of  historical 
record,  which  cannot  be  disputed,  and  which  is  not 
denied,  even  by  the  Romanists  themselves.  Who 
that  is  not  insane  with  prejudice,  could  persuade 
himself,  that  all  the  opinions,  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies, which  now  exist  in  the  Romish  church,  were 
prevalent  in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  and  were  re- 
ceived from  them  by  tradition  ? 

Besides,  there  is  a  multitude  of  other  things  re- 
ceived and  held  to  be  important,  by  the  church  of 
Rome,  of  which  there  is  no  vtstige  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  concerning  which  there  is  no  early  tra- 
dition. Many  rules  and  ceremonies  which  have 
been  long  in  use,  ^an  be  traced  to  their  commence- 
ment, at  a  period  much  later  than  that  of  the  apos- 
tles. Now  amidst  such  a  mass  of  traditions,  how 
can  it  be  ascertained  which  have  come  down  from 
Christ  and  his  apostles?  Perhaps  we  shall  be  told, 
that  the  infallible  head  of  the  church  can  determine^ 

3  Thes.  ii.  3. 


3S5 

with  certainty,  what  we  ought  to  believe  and  prac« 
tise;  hut  if  there  be  on  eartli  an  inf:tlli!>l«;  Ju  l^'"*  we 
have  no  tieed  of  iraditi  ms.  All  thtt  is  nei^essiry.  is, 
for  this  p'T8on  to  eslahlish  his  claim  to  iufallihili- 
ty,  and  then  all  will  be  as  much  bound  to  receive 
liis  decisions,  as  if  they  were  expressly  written  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  On  this  ijrouiid  the  controver- 
sy between  the  Romanists  and  Protestants  first  com- 
menced. The  dff(Mutersof  the  v)l(l  8>  siem  appealed 
to  the  authority  of  the  Pope, and  tl)e  infallibility  of 
the  church,  hut  as  it  was  impossible  to  sustain  thcm- 
sclvi-s  by  Scripture,  on  these  points,  they  found  it 
vtry  convenient  to  have  recourse  to  thedoctrine  of 
unwritten  traditions,  which  they  pretended  had 
been  handed  down  from  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 
Grant  them  this,  and  theje  is  no  doctrini  ,  how- 
ever absurd,  which  may  not  be  supported.  Grant 
ihem  this,  and  it  will  l)e  in  vain  to  appeal  any 
m'ir<-  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  as  a  standard  of 
truth;  for  this  traditionary  law  not  only  inculcates 
what  is  not  found  in  ihe  Scriptures,  but  teaches 
the  only  true  interpretation  of  Scripture.  Tradi- 
tions may,  therefore,  be  considired  as  the  bulwark 
of  the  Romish  church.  Concede  to  them,  the 
ground  which  they  assume,  and  the  whole  body 
of  their  ceremonial  laws,  and  unscriptnral  practices, 
are  safe.  For  as  they  can  feij^n  what  traditions 
they  please,  having  the  keeping  of  them  entirely 
in  their  own  hands,  they  are  prepared  to  defend 
every   part  of  their  system  :  but  take  this  away 


356 

from  them,  and  their  defence  is  gone.  Bring 
them  to  the  ground  of  clear  Scriptural  testimo- 
nies, and  they  are  weak  ;  for  it  is  manifest,  tUat 
the  Bibii;  knows  nothJMg  of  their  monstrous  accu- 
mulation of  superstitious  rites. 

Tiie  Council  of  Trent,  therefore,  early  in  their 
sessions,  ma.ie  a  decree  on  this  subject,  in  vvhifh, 
after  recognising  the  Scriptures,  they  add. — "iVec 
non  tradttiones  ipsas,  turn  ad  fidem,  turn  ad 
mnres  pertinenfes,  tanquam  vel  oretenus  a 
Chrislo,  vel  a  spiritu  sancto,  dictatus  et  conti- 
niia  successione  in  Ecclesia  Catholica  conser- 
vatas,  pari  pietatis  affectu  et  reverentia  suscipit 
ac  veneratur.^^  The  meaning  of  which  is,  that 
The  Holy  Synod  receives  and  venerates  traditions 
relnti^ig  both  to  faith  ai^d  manners,  as  proceeding 
from  the  mmiih  of  Christ  himself,  or  as  dictated  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  preserved  in  an  uniutt  rrupted 
succession  in  theCaiholic  church,  with  equal  affec- 
tiun  and  reverence,  as  the  writt-n  Scriptures  ! 
This  was  the  first  decree  of  the  fourth  Session  of 
this  ffimous  Council. 

Before  leaving  this  subject,  it  will  be  proper  to 
consider  somti  of  the  other  aigunients,  wluch  the 
Romanists  bring  forward  in  support  of  their  belov- 
ed traditions. 

And  the  first  is  imposing,  as  it  is  derived  from 
the  express  declarations  of  Scripture,  in  which  ^ve 
are  exhorted  to  obey  traiiitions.  Now  we  com- 
mand you  brethren.)  in  the  name  of  our  Lord 


357 

Jesus  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every 
brother  that  ivalketh  disorderly,  and  not  after 
the  tradition  which  he  received  of  us.  Here 
P;iul  inak«  s  express  mention  of  tradiloii.  And  in 
{}\^'  precedinaj  chapter,  Therefore  brethren  stand 
fist  (Did  hold  the  TRAninoNs  which  ye  hove  been 
tuui^/it  lohether  by  word^  or  our  Epistle.  Now 
all  that  is  necessary  to  refute  the  argument  derived 
from  these  and  such  like  passages,  where  the  word 
tradition  is  used,  is  to  observe,  tiiat  Paul  employs 
this  word  in  a  very  extensive  sense,  to  signify 
whatever  doctrines  or  institutions  he  had  delivered 
to  the  churches,  whether  by  liis  preaching  or  wri- 
ting. And  in  the  verse  first  cited,  he  evidently 
reft-rs  to  what  he  had  said  to  them  in  his  First 
Epistle,  for  the  words  following  are.  For  your- 
selves knoiu  how  ye  ought  to  follow  us;  for  we  be- 
haved not  ourselves  disorderly  arnong  you  ;  nei- 
ther did  ive  cat  any  man's  bread  for  nought,  &c. 
Now  this  tradition  which  he  commanded  the 
Thessalonians  to  obey,  was  contained  in  the  for- 
mer Epistle  addressed  to  tliecn,  where  it  is  said, 
^^nd  that  ye  study  to  be  quiet,  and  to  do  your 
own  business,  and  to  work  with  your  own 
hands,  as  we  commanded  you.  And  in  the 
quotation  from  the  2il  chapter,  it  is  clear,  that  by 
traditions,  the  apostle  did  not  mean  merely  oral 
communications,  for  lie  explains  hims.lf,  by  say- 
ing, whether  by  word  or  our  Epistle.     It   is  not 

2  Thes.  ill.  6,7,    II,  15.  1  Thcs.  iv.   11. 

n    H 


358 

denied,  that  Paul  delivered  many  things  orally  to 
the  churches,  as  has  been  ah'eady  acknowledged  ; 
all  the  instructions  given  to  the  churches,  first 
planted,  were  oral,  for  as  yet  no  Gospels  nor  Epis- 
tles were  written  ;  but  the  true  point  in  dispute, 
is,  whether  any  article  of  faith,  or  any  important 
institution,  thus  originally  communicated,  was 
omitted,  when  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
were  written,  by  divine  inspiration  ?  Whether, 
while  a  part  of  the  revelation  of  God,  for  the  use 
of  his  churcl),  was  committed  to  writing,  another 
important  pai't  was  left  to  be  handed  down  by  tra- 
dition ?  That  the  word  tradition,  as  used  by 
Paul,  makes  nothing  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Romish  church,  is  evident,  because  by  this 
word  he  commonly  means  such  things  as  were  dis- 
tinctly recorded  in  the  Scriptures.  Thus  in  his 
First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  he  says.  For  1 
delivered  unto  you  first  of  all,  where  the  word 
for  ti-ansmitting  by  tradition,  is  used  ;  but  what 
were  those  things  which  he  had  by  tradition 
communicated  to  them  ?  He  informs  us  in  the 
next  words,  How  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  that  he  loas 
buried,  and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day, 
according  to  the  Scriptu  es. 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  the  arguinent  de- 
rived from    the    exhortation  of  Paul  to  obey  tra- 
dition,  is   but  a  shadovv,  and   vanishes  upon    the 
slightest  touch  of  fair  examination. 
1   Cor.  XV.  3,  4. 


^.  Tlieir  next,  ami  principal  argument,  is  deri- 
Ced  from  the  iVeqiicnt  declarations  of  the  early 
Fnthers,  in  favour  of  tradition.  Cyprian  refers 
those  who  might  he  in  doubt  respecting  any  doc- 
trine, to  the  hoh/  trddition,  received  from  Christ 
and  his  apostles  :  and  Irenaius,  as  cited  by  Euse- 
bius,  says,  "  That  those  things  which  lie  heard 
Polycarp  relate  concerning  Christ,  his  virtues 
and  his  doctrines,  which  he  had  learned  from  con- 
verse with  the  apostles,  he  had  inscribed  on  his 
heart,  and  not  on  paper."  But  after  a  few  senten- 
ces, he  informs  us,  ^'That  all  wliich  he  had  heard 
from  them  was  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures, 
(ir'avTa  tfijixtpwva  Tar?  y^«^a(5.)This  sentence  of  Irenaeus 
is  of  great  importance,  for  it  teaches  us  how  the 
Fathers  understood  this  subject.  They  received 
such  traditions  as  came  down  through  pious  men 
from  the  apostles,  but  they  compared  them  with 
the  Scriptures  :  even  then  the  Scriptures  were  the 
standard  by  which  all  traditions  must  be  judged. 
Irenscus  insinuates,  plainly  enough,  that  if  what 
he  had  heard  from  Polycarp,  had  not  been  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Scriptures,  he  would  not  have 
considered  it  as  deserving  attention 

But  the  same  Irenaius,  and  Tertullian,  have 
spoken,  in  still  stronger  terms,  in  favour  of  tradi- 
tion, in  their  controversies  with  heretics.  The 
former,  in  the  third  chapter,  of  the  third 
book  of  his  work,  on  Heresies,  says  ;  **  The  tra- 

Lib.  V.  c.  20. 


360 

dition  of  the  apostles  is  manifest,  in  the  whole 
woild.  In  the  church  it  is  exposed  to  the  view  of 
all,  who  are  willing  to  know  the  truth."  And  in 
the  fourth  chapter,  "  It  is  not  necessary  to  seek 
the  truth  from  others,  which  can  easily  be  acquired 
from  the  c  urch,  since  the  blessed  apostles  have 
deposited  in  her,  most  fully,  all  those  truths  which 
are  needful,  so  that  every  one  who  will,  may 
drink  of  the  water  of  life.  This  is  the  true 
door  of  life,  and  all  others  are  thieves  and  robbers: 
them  we  should  avoid  :  but  those  things  which 
appertain  to  the  church,  we  should  delight  in 
with  great  diligence,  and  should  lay  hold  of  the 
tradition  of  Iruth.  For  what  if  the  apostles  had 
left  us  no  writings,  ought  we  not  to  follow  the  or- 
der of  traditions,  which  they,  to  whom  the 
churches  were  committed,  have  delivered  to  us  ? 
To  which  institution,  many  barbarous  nations  have 
submitted,  having  neither  letters  nor  ink,  but  hav- 
ing the  tradition  of  the  apostles,  inscribed  an 
their  hearts;  which  also  they  follow." 

And  Tertullian,  in  his  work,  concerning  Pre- 
scriptions, says,  "If  Christ  commissioned  cer- 
tain persons  to  preach  his  gospel,  then  certainly 
none  should  be  received  as  preachers,  except  those 
appointed  to  office  by  him.  And  as  they  preach, 
ed  what  Christ  revealed  unto  them,  what  they 
tauglit  can  only  he  known,  by  applying  to  the 
churches,  which  the  apostles  planted,  by  preach- 
ing to  them,  whether  7^iva  vocp.  or  bv  their  Epis 


lies.  Therefore,  all  doctrine  which  agrees  with  that 
held  hy  the  apostolical  churches,  is  to  he  consider- 
ed as  Irue,  and  held  fust,  hecause  the  churches  re- 
ceived it  from  the  apostles,  the  apostles  from 
Christ,  aiul  Christ  fiom  God  ;  hut  all  other  doc- 
trine whici)  is  repugnant  to  that  received  by  the 
churches,  should  be  rejected  as  false,  as  being 
ref)U2nant  to  that  tnitfi  taught  by  the  apostles,  by 
Chri>t,  and  hy  God." 

These  declarations,  from  such  men,  in  favour 
of  tradition,  seem  at  first  vii  \v,  to  be  altogether 
favour:d)h  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church  of  R'me  ; 
but  we  despair  not  of  bcin<;  able  to  convince  the 
candid  reader,  that  when  the  occasion  on  which 
these  things  wore  said,  and  the  character  and  opin* 
ions  of  the  persons  against  whom  these  Fathers 
wrote,  arc  considered,  ih'.ir  testimony,  instead  of 
making  against  the  sufliciency  of  the  Scrijiluros 
will  be  found  corroborative  of  thu  opinion  which 
we  maintain.  They  do  not  apfical  to  tradition, 
let  it  be  oljservcd,  for  confirmation  of  articles  of 
faith,  not  contained  in  the  »Scriptures  ;  but  the 
doctrines  whicli  they  are  defending,  are  among 
the  most  fundamental,  contained  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. They  are  precisely  the  doctrines  wliich 
are  comprehended  in  the  Apostles'  Creed.  Now, 
to  appeal  to  tradition  for  the  confirmation  of 
such  doctrines  as  these,  never  can  be  of  any 
force  lu  prove,  that  other  doctrines,  not  contained 
in  the  Scriptures,  may  be  established  by  tradition. 
H   H    2 


se2 

But  it  may  be  asked,  if  those  doctrines  concern- 
ing which  they  disputed,  are  plainly  inculcated  in 
the  New  Testament,  why  have  recourse  to  tradi- 
tion ?  Why  not  appeal,  at  once,  to  the  Scrip- 
tures ?  To  which  I  would  answer,  that  Irenasus 
does  little  else,  in  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth 
books  of  his  work,  than  confirm  the  truth  by  a 
copious  citation  of  Scripture,  Nothing  can  be 
more  manifest,  therefore,  than  that  the  matters  in 
dispute  were  not  such  as  could  only  be  proved  by 
tradition,  but  they  were  such  truths  as  lie  a.  the 
very  foundation  of  the  Christian  reliiijion,  and  to 
record  which,  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  were 
written.  But  still  the  ques'ion  returns,  why  did 
these  Fathers  appeal  for  proof  to  tradition,  when 
they  had  testimony  so  full  and  decisive  from  the 
Scriptures?  The  answer  to  t;;is  question  will 
show  us,  in  th.e  clearest  manner,  that  the  views 
of  Irenaeus  and  Terlullian,  relative  to  the  Scrip- 
tures and  lo  traditions,  wore  such  as  are  now  held 
by  Protestants,  and  that  the  heretics  whom  the}' 
opposeiK  occii;>!<h1  nearly  the  same  ground  as  the 
Romanists  now  do,  in  this  controversy.  These 
heretics,  either  rejected  the  Scriptures  as  being  an 
insufficient  rule,  and  asserted  that  they  were  not 
competent  for  the  decision  of  such  matters  ;  or 
they  so  corrupted  them,  that  it  was  useless  to  ap- 
peal to  them  for  proof:  for  testimonies  derived 
from  the  genuine  Scrip! urt-s, they  vvould  not  admit. 
This  is  not  conjecture  j  for  Irenaeus  has  explicitly 


363 

stated  the  case.  <'When,"  says  lu-,  <Mhey  are 
conlutt'd  iVuin  the  Siriptures  liiem>^clv('s,  they 
alltge,  that  thi'y  are  not  lorrect,  or  not  oi"  autho- 
rity, and  assert  that  they  speak  so  variously,  iliat 
the  truth  cannot  he  cstabhshcd  by  iheni,  wiihonl 
tradition  ;  f»>r  say  they  it  was  handed  down,  not 
by  letters,  but  viva  voce."  And  Tertullian  says, 
"This  heresy  does  not  receive  some  parts  of 
the  Scriptures  ;  and  what  they  do  receive  is 
so  corrupti'd  by  additions,  or  detract  ions,  to 
suit  tlieir  own  doctrine,  that  they  cannot  be  said 
to  receive  the  Scriptures  entire,  &c  "  Again  : 
"They  pretend  that  the  apostles  did  not  wish 
to  reveal  all  things  plainly,  for  while  they  made 
known  certain  truths  to  all,  tliere  were  others, 
which  they  communicated  secretly,  and  to  a  hw 
pers  >ns,  which  they  say,  the  apostle  Paul  meant, 
by  the  c/eposittim." 

From  these  quotations,  the  reason  why  these 
Fathers  had  recotirse  to  traditions,  ig  most  manifest. 
It  was  the  only  ground  on  which  these  heretics 
could  be  met  ;  for  they  denied,  (as  the  Romaii- 
ists  now  do,)  that  the  Scriptures  were  a  certiun 
and  sufficient  standar<l  of  troth.  They  said, that  their 
meaning  could  nut  he  ascertained  without  tradi- 
tion ;  that  tliey  were  defective  5  and  abo,  that 
there  were  some  parl«  which  they  did  not  acknow- 
ledge ;  and  they  held  moreover,    that  some  things 

1  Tim.  VI.  20 


364 

were  never  committed  to  writing,  but  designedly 
handed  down  by  tradition.  We  did  not,  indeed, 
expect  to  find  'he  exact  doctrine  of  ti»e  Roman- 
ists, respecting  the  Scriptures  and  tradition,  at  so 
earJy  a  period  of  the  church  ;  but  unfortunately 
for  their  cause,  the  persons  who  are  found  agree- 
ing with  them,  are  gross  heretics. 

It  is  now  easy  to  see,  why  the  appeal  was 
made  by  the  Fathers,  to  universal  tradition  ;  and 
they  show,  that  in  iheir  day,  tiadition  and  Scrip- 
ture were  harmonious  ;  and  that  if  the  apostles 
had  written  nothing;,  the  consent  of  all  the  church- 
es would  be  sufficient  to  prove,  that  the  doctrines 
which  they  defended,  were  received  from  the 
apos'les.  Instead,  therefore,  of  using  tradition, 
as  thp  Romanis  s  do,  to  prove  some  doctrine  not 
contained  in  the  Scrip'ure,  they  used  it  merely 
to  confirm  the  truths  wiiic  hare  manifestly  contain- 
ed in  the  New  Testament  The}'  were  at  no  loss 
for  Scripture  testimonies  to  establish  these  truths, 
but  they  were  ('isputing  with  men  who  did  not 
admit  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  to  be  decis- 
ive, and  therefijre  they  appeal  to  universal  tradi- 
tion, in  support  of  them  It  is  said,  indeed,  by 
Irenseus,  that  many  barbarous  nations  had  received 
the  fpith,  among  whom  letters  and  writing  were 
unknown.  They  must,  therefore,  it  is  conclud^'d, 
have  received  it  from  tradition.  Very  good.  Just 
as  heathen  tribes  now  receive,  from  those  mis- 
sionaries who  preach  the  gospel  to  them,  a  short 


865 

summary  of  the  most  important  doctrines  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  truths  which  these  harha- 
rous  nations  received,  were  not  diflferent  from 
those  contained  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  but  the 
very  same,  taught  in  a  short  conipreh«-nsive  creed. 
In  fact,  we  have  hero,  the  true  origin  of  that  sym- 
bol of  doctrine,  commonly  caHed,  'I'he  Apostles' 
Creed,  which  was  a  summary  of  Christianity, 
used  in  very  early  times,  in  the  instruction  of 
those  who  were  not  able  to  read  the  Nevv  Tt  sta- 
i^sent,  or  who  had  no  access  to  it.  That  Irenaeus 
actually  referred,  in  the  p:iss:igp  alluded  to,  to  these 
elementary  doctrines,  he  explicitly  informs  us  • 
for,  immediately  after  mentioning  these  barbarous 
nations,  who  were  destitute  of  **  letters  and  ink," 
he  adds,  *'  Believing  in  one  God,  the  maker  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  all  things  which  are  therein; 
and  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  who  for  his 
exceeding  great  love  to  his  creatures,  submitted 
to  be  born  of  a  virgin,  by  himself  uniting  man  to 
God  ;  and  having  suUored  under  Pontius  Pilate, 
and  having  risen  again,  w:is  received  into  heaven  ; 
about  to  come  again  in  glory  ;  the  Saviour  of 
those  who  are  saved,  and  the  judge  ol  tho><e  who 
are  judged  ;  and  will  send  into  eternal  fire,  the 
perverters  of  the  truth,  and  the  despisers  of  his 
Father,  and  of  his  coming  ;  which  bmbarians,  if 
any  one  should  announce  to  them  the  doctrines  in- 
vented by  herctic>,  stopping  their  ears,  t'ley  would 
fly  far  away  from  them.     Thus,  the  ancient  apos- 


366 

tolical  tradition  does  not  sanction  those  monstrous 
opinions  inculcated  by  heretics." 

In  the  second  chapter,  of  the  first  book,  of  the 
same  work,  Irenaeus  describes  the  apostolical 
doctrine,  thus:  "The  church,"  says  he,  "plant- 
ed by  the  apostles  and  their  disciples  throughout 
the  whole  world,  even  to  the  ends  of  the  earth, 
receives  the  same  faith  ;  which  is,  In  one  God 
Almighty, the  Father,  who  made  Heaven  and  earth, 
the  sea  and  all  things  which  are  therein  ;  in  one 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  incarnate  for  our 
salvation  ;  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  by  the 
prophets,  predicted  the  good-will  of  God  ;  his  ad- 
vent ;  his  generation  of  a  virgin  ;  his  passion,  and 
resurrection  from  the  dead  ;  and  the  ascension  in 
the  flesh  of  our  beloved  Lord  Christ  Jesus  ;  and 
his  coming  again  from  Heaven,  in  the  glory  of 
his  Father,  as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ;  our  God, 
Saviour,  and  King  ;  before  whom,  according  to 
the  good  pleasure  of  the  Father  invisible,  every 
knee  shall  bow,  of  things  in  heaven  and  things  in 
earth,  and  things  under  the  earth,  and  every 
tongue  shall  confess  the  justice  of  his  judgments 
towards  all,  when  he  will  send  wicked  spirits, 
fallen  and  apostate  angels,  and  blaspheming  men, 
into  eternal  fire  ;  but  the  just  and  upright  who 
have  kept  his  precepts,  and  persevered  in  his  love, 
some  indeed  from  the  beginning,  and  otiiers  as  hav- 
ing received  the  gift  of  repentance,  he  will  sur- 
round with  eternal  glory.     This  faith,  the  church 


367 

spread  over  tlie  whole  world,  diligoiitly  konp5,  as 
if  siie  iiiliahited  one  house,  and  believes  in  it,  as 
it'  possessing  but  one  soul  and  one  hciirt  ;  ind  in 
accordance  with  the  same,  sho  leaches  and  pf'  ach- 
es, as  with  one  mouth.  Althousi;h  the  languages 
which  are  in  the  world  are  difTerenf,  yet  there  is 
one  and  the  same  tradition.  Neither  do  the 
churches  which  are  founrlcd  in  Germany,  believe 
difftrently,  from  those  in  Italy,  nor  fiom  those 
among  the  Celts,  nor  from  thnse  in  the  East,  nor 
from  those  which  are  in  Egypt,  or  in  Lybia,  or  in 
the  middle  of  the  world.  But  as  the  Stm  is  one  and 
the  same  through  the  whole  world,  so  the  liglit 
and  preaching  of  the  truth,  every  where  shines, 
and  illumiiiatos  all  men, who  are  willing  to  come 
to  the   knowledge  of  the   truth,  4'C." 

This  then  is  the  apostolical  tradition,  of  which 
these  Fathers  speak  so  muguiticenlly.  Not 
any  secret  doctrine  never  commitled  to  wri- 
ting; not  any  articles  of  faith,  or  rites  of  wor- 
ship, of  which  no  vestige  can  be  found  in  the 
Bible  ;  but  the  plain,  prominent,  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion  :  the  very 
doctrines  contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed.  That 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  preceded  the  circula- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  we  admit,  but  this  preach- 
ing we  insist,  and  have  proved,  contained  nothing 
different  from  that  which  is  written  in  the  Gospels 
and   Epistles. 

Tertullian    speaks  to    the   same    purpose,    and 


S(j8 

furnishes  us  with  another  summary  of  the  common 
faith  of  primitive  Christians  ;  "^  The  rule  of  faith," 
says  l-.e,  "  is  that  hy  which  it  is  behevtd,  that 
there  is  no  more  than  one  God,  and  no  other  be- 
side the  Creator  of  the  world,  who  produced  al 
things  out  of  nothing  by  h'S  Word,  first  of  all  sent 
forth,  which  Word,  is  called  his  Son  ;  was  seen 
Under  different  forms  by  the  Patriarchs  ;  was  al- 
ways heard  by  the  prophets  ;  and  finally,  by  the 
Spirit  and  Power  of  God,  being  conceived  by  the 
Virgin  Mary,  became  flesh  in  her  womb.  Jesus 
Christ  having  thus  become  man,  published  a  new 
law,  and  a  new  promise  of  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven ;  was  crucified  ;  rose  again  the  third  day  ; 
was  caugiit  up  into  heaven  ;  sat  down  on  the  right 
hand  uf  God  the  Faiher  ;  sent  as  his  substitute, 
the  Power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  influence  those 
who  believe  ;  ivill  come  again  in  glory  to  take  his 
Saints  to  the  fruition  of  eternal  life,  and  of  the 
celestial  promises;  and  to 'adjudge  the  profane 
to  eternal  fire  ;  at  which  time  there  will  be  a  re- 
suscitation of  both  pai'ts,  and  the  flesh  will  be 
restored.  This  rule  of  fiith  was  instituted  by 
Christ,  and  is  questioned  by  none  but  heretics,  and 
such  as  teach  those  things  which  make  here- 
tics."* 

These  are  the  apostolical  traditions,   wiiich  were 
•universally  received  ;  the  very  plainest,  and  most 

*  TertuU.  De  PrsescriiJlionibus. 


36» 

fundamental  articles  of  tlic  Christian  ReligIoii> 
which  are  written  amply  in  every  gospel,  and  re- 
cognized fully,  in  every  Epistle.  Thus  far  then, 
it  does  not  appear  that  any  thing  was  left  to  un- 
written tradition,  to  be  communicated  to  future 
ages  ;  for  those  very  truths  which  were  at  first  de- 
livered orally  by  the  apostles,  were  afterwards  re- 
corded by  inspiration ;  and  when  the  preachers  of 
the  gospel  instructed  the  ignorant  who  were  unac- 
quainted with  letters,  they  taught  them,  precisely, 
but  in  a  summary  way,  what  is  written  in  the  New 
Testament. 

3.   Another  argument  depended  on  by  the  advo-    \ 
cates  of  tradition,  is  derived  from  the  fact,  that  there     \ 
are  some  doctrines,  not  expressly  mentioned  inScrip-       * 
ture,   which  are  universally  inculcated   by  the  Fa- 
thers, which  all  true  Christians  have  received   as 
articles  of  faith  in  all  succeeding  ages,    and  which 
are   not  denied   even   by  Protestants   themselves. 
To  this  class,   belong,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
the  doctrine   of   the   Son  being  of  the   same  sub- 
stance as  ihe  Father,  the  deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
his  proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,   the 
two  natures  in  Christ  constituting  one  person,   the 
baptism  of    infants,     the    religious  observance    of 
the  Lord's  day,  &.c.     Now,   in  regard  to  these  ar- 
ticles of  religion,  we  observe,   that  although    they 
are  not  contained  in  Scripture,  in  so  many  words, 
they  may   be    derived   from  Scripture,   by  legiti- 
mate  inference  :  and  conclusions   fairly    deduced 
I    J 


370 

from  the  declarations  of  the  word  of  God,  are  as 
truly  parts  of  divine  revelation,  as  if  they  were 
expressly  taught  in  the  Sacred  volume.  All  the 
articles  mentioned  above,  are  capable  of  satis- 
factory proof  from  Scripture ;  and  if  we  did 
not  find  them  taught  there,  we  should  feel  un- 
der no  obligation  to  receive  them.  We  do  not 
deny,  however,  that  the  universal  consent,  and 
uniform  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  ought 
to  have  great  weight  in  confirming  our  faith  in 
important  doctrines,  and  in  satisfying  us  that 
certain  things  not  explicitly  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture, were  practised  by  the  apostles.  Although 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  essential  deity 
of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  are  doctrines  very 
plainly  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  37et  in  a 
matter  of  such  vast  importance,  it  cannot  but  af- 
ford satisfaction  to  every  sincere  inquirer  to  find, 
that  these  doctrines  were  universally  believed  by 
the  Fathers  to  be  taught  in  the  writings  of  the 
apostles. 

And,  although,  there  are  principles  and  iacts 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  from  which  it 
can  be  fairly  concluded,  that  the  first  day  of  the 
week  v\as  set  apart  for  public  worship,  and  that 
the  infants  of  believers  were,  from  the  beginning, 
baptized,  and  thus  connected  with  the  visible 
church  ;  yet,  as  these  institutions  are  not  so  ex- 
pressly included  in  Scripture,  as  to  remove  all 
uncertainty,  the  fact  of  their  universal  observance, 


371 

in  the  primitive  church,  has,  deservedly,  great 
influence  in  convincing  us,  that  our  reasonings  and 
inferences  from  Scrijitural  principles,  are  correct. 
But  why  should  wo  be  required  to  receive  these 
things  merely  on  the  authority  of  tradition,  when 
the  Fathers  themselves,  appealed  for  their  truth  to 
the  infallible  rule  contained  in  the  New  Testament  r 
Thus,  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism,  which  the 
Romanists  pretend  is  derived  solely  from  traditioa, 
we  fmd  the  Fathers  appealing  not  only  to  univer- 
sal practice  and  apostolical  tradition,  but  frequent- 
ly to  the  words  of  Scripture,  in  which  they  be- 
lieved, that  the  practice  was  implicitly  autho- 
lized.  Irenaeus,  Origen,  Augustine,  Cyprian, 
Ambrose,  and  Chrysostom,  do  all  appeal  to  Scrip- 
ture, when  treating  this  subject,  although  they  do, 
indeed,  lay  great  stress  on  the  derivation  of  this 
practice  from  the  apostles,  by  undoubind  tradition. 
It  is  not  denied,  however,  that  after  some  time  an 
undue  deference  was  paid  to  traditions.  It  will 
be  shown,  hereafter,  that  many  were  misled  from 
the  simplicity  of  the  gospel  by  this  very  means. 
By  yielding  too  ready  an  assent  to  traditions,  they 
were  leil  to  adopt  false  opinions,  si»me  of  which 
were  directly  repugnant  to  the  written  word.  It 
can  have  no  weight  with  us,  therefore,  to  adduce 
such  a  writer  as  Epiphanius,  extolling  tradition  ; 
for  it  can  be  proved,  that  from  this  source  he  im- 
bibed many  foolish  notions,  and  fabulous  stories, 
which  the  jnore  impartial  among  the   Romanist?. 


372 

are  as  far  from  receiving,  as  we  are.  Nor,  do  we 
Ibel  bound,  on  this  subject,  to  adopt  all  the  opin- 
ions any  where  found  in  the  writings  of  Origen, 
Basil,  Augustine,  &c.;  for  we  are  persuaded,  that 
this  was  one  of  the  errors  of  antiquity,  and  that 
it  was  prolific  of  numerous  evils,  by  which  the 
church  of  God  became  greatly  corrupted,  in 
after  times.  But  it  answers  no  purpose  to  the 
Romish  church  to  plead  these  authorities,  for- 
they  themselves  do  not  receive  as  articles  of  faith 
or  parts  of  divine  worship,  all  that  these  Fatherg 
received  from  tradition.  The  principle  of  Pro-* 
testants  ever  has  been,  that  the  Scriptures  contain 
all  things  necessary  to  guide  the  faith  and  practice 
of  believers  ;  and  they  feel  under  no  obligations, 
to  receive  any  article  of  religion  which  cannot  be 
proved  to  be  contained  in  the  Sacred  volume.  If, 
in  the  explanation  of  Scripture,  light  can  be  de- 
rived from  tradition,  or  the  universal  opinion  or 
practice  of  the  prinjitive  church,  they  are  very 
willing  to  avail  themselves  of  it ;  as  they  are  to 
derive  aid  from  any  other  quarter  :  but  when 
they  are  convinced  that  the  Fathers  were  fallible 
men,  and  actually  fell  into  many  mistakes,  it 
would  be  folly  to  build  their  faith  on  their  opin> 
ions ;  much  more  to  adopt  their  errors,  knowing 
them  to  be  such.  "  The  Bible  is  the  Religion 
oir  Protestants." 

The  fact  is,    that  the   Fathers    generally    dcr 
peuded  on  Scripture  for  the  proof  of  their  dox:- 


373 

Irincs  ;  and  called  in  the  aid  of  tradition,  only  to 
confirm  the  doctrines  which  they  derived  from  the 
written  word.  And  Iiert-  it  is  important  to  re- 
mark, that  tradition,  in  tlie  earlier  and  pui'er 
times  of  the  church,  was  a  very  different  thing 
from  what  it  is  now.  Men  wlio  lived  within  one  or 
two  hundred  years  of  the  apostles,  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  ascertaining  their  opinions  and  practi- 
ces, from  tradition,  nith  a  degree  of  certainty, 
which  is  utterly  unattainable,  after  the  lapse  of 
ages  of  error  and  darkness.  If  it  should  be  agreed 
to  receive  as  apostolical,  every  thing  vvhich  the 
early  Fatliers  professed  to  have  received  by  tra- 
dition from  tlie  apostles,  yet  it  would  be  most  un- 
reasonable to  be  required  to  admit  as  divine,  the 
monstrous  mass  of  traditions  held  by  the  Romish 
church,  which  has  been  accumulating  for   ages. 

liut  it  is  cajiable  of  the  clearest  proof,  that  great 
uncertaiity  attended  all  matters  received  by  tradi- 
tion, which  were  not  contained  in  Scripture,  even 
in  those  limes  tliat  were  nearest  to  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  This  fact  is  manifest, in  the  case  of  Papias, 
who  was  contemporary  with  the  last  of  the  apos- 
tles ;  and  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  lived  in 
tlie  second  century.  If  then  tradition  was  so  un- 
certain, at  its  very  source,  who  can  place  any  confi- 
dence in  lliis  channel  of  communication,  after  it 
has  been  increasing  in  impurity,  for  seventeen 
hundred  years  ?  If  the  stream  had  even  been 
1  I  2 


3741 

pure  in  Its  commencement,  it  would,  by  this  time, 
have  become  so  turbid,  and  so  poisoned,  that  no 
dependence  could  be  placed  in  the  information 
conveyed  by  it.  But  where  certain  thins^s  are  said 
to  have  been  received  by  tradition  from  the  apostle 
John  n  second  hand, it  was  deemed  important  to  ve- 
rify them,  by  a  .comparison  with  the  Scriptures,  as 
we  have  already  seen.  How  unreasonable  then 
is  the  demand,  that  we  should  now  receive  all 
traditions,  which  have  come  down  to  us,  without 
any  test  of  their  genuineness,  or  any  comparison 
of  them  vvith  the  Oracles  of  God  ! 

Here  also,  it  is  necessary  to  observe,  that  there 
is  a  wide  distinction  to  be  made  between  articles 
of  faith  and  institutions  of  worship,  which  arr  ob- 
ligatorv  on  all,  and  such  modes  of  worship  as  were 
adopted  under  the  s;eneral  rule,  o{  doing  all  thitigs 
decently  and  in  order ;  or  frf)m  notions  of  ex- 
pediency, with  a  view  of  conciliating;  those  that 
were  without.  It  w.^y  be  pro\  ed,  indeed,  from 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  that  many  things  of 
this  kind  ^;xisted,  vvhich  they  never  thoug;ht  of 
placing  on  a  level  with  the  faith  received  from  the 
apostles.  And  it  may  be  here  remarked,  that  it 
was  one  of  the  first  and  greatest  mistakes  into 
which  the  church  fell,  after  inspiration  ceased,  to 
make  too  free  a  use  of  this  doctrine  of  expediency. 
The  ahuses  which  have  crept  in  under  this  spe- 
cious disguise  were  not   foreseen.     The   Fathers 


375 

saw  no  harm  in  an  indifferent  ceremony,  to  which., 
perhaps,  their  new  converts  were  attached  from 
lone;  custom.  By  adopting  things  of  tliis  kind,  the 
church,  which  was  t  fiist  simple  and  unencumber- 
ed with  rites,  became  strangely  metamorphosed  ; 
and  in  place  of  her  simple  robe  of  white,  assumed 
a  gorgeous  dress,  tricked  off  with  gaudy  orna- 
ments and  various  colours.  And  this  practice  of 
inventing  new  ceremonies,  went  on  increasing, 
until,  in  process  of  time,  the  burdensome  ritual 
of  the  Levitical  law  was  not  comparable  to  the 
liturgy  of  the  Christian  church.  Who  that  now 
attends  a  Romish  chapel,  on  some  high  day, 
would  suppose  that  the  service  performed,  was 
connected  with  tiie  religion  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ? 

It  is  of  no  consequence,  therefore,  to  adduce 
testimonies  from  thr  Fathers,  of  the  second,  third, 
and  fourth  ajjes,  of  the  Christian  church,  to  show, 
that  such  ceremonies  were  then  m  use,  in  some 
particular  part  of  the  church  ;  or  even  in  the 
church  universal.  All  know  by  what  means  these 
things  were  received,  and  obtained  prevalence. 
But  let  it  be  kept  in  memory,  that  the  Fathers 
do  not  assert  that  these  usages  were  derived  from 
the  apostles  ;  nor  do  they  pretend  that  they  were 
necessary  ;  and  acordingly  we  find,  that  in  differ- 
ent countries,  they  were  not  the  same, 

4.  I  come  now  to  consider  the  last  argument 
for  unwritten  traditions,  which  I  have  been  able 


376 

to  discover.  It  is  this,  that  without  the  aid  of 
tradition,  the  Scriptures  will  be  of  no  real  benefit 
to  ua,  because  it  is  only  by  this  means  that  we 
can  arrive  at  their  true  meaning.  And,  it  is 
alleged,  that  the  Fathers,  in  all  disputes  with  he- 
relics,  when  they  referred  to  Scripture,  still 
appealed  to  universal  tradition,  for  a  true  ex- 
position of  the  meaning  of  the  passages  addu- 
ced. 

In    returning    an    answer   to   this    argument, 
would    observe,  that    should    we    even    grant    all 
that  is  contended  for,  it  would  not  be  a  concession 
of  the  main  point  in  controversy.      The  claim  of 
the   Romanists,  so   unblushingly   advanced,   in  the 
decree  of  Trent,  already  cited,  is,  "  That  traditions 
relating  both   to   faith  and  manners,    are   ttt 
he  received  with  equal  affection  and  reverence, 
as   the    Canonical  Scriptures.'^     And,    lest  we 
should  be  at  any  loss  to  kn  'W  what  articles  of  faith 
are  pretended  to  be  received  by  tradition  alone, 
Peter  a  Soto,  one  of  the  great  defenders  of  the 
decrees   of  the  Council  of  Trent,   and  a  member 
of   that  Council,  explicitly   declares,    "That   the 
rule    is    infallible   and    universal  ;     that    whatever 
things  the    Romish    church    believes    and    holds, 
which  are  not  contained   in  the  Scriptures,  are  to 
be  considered  as   derived  from  the  apostles  ;  pro- 
vided the  observances  cannot  be  traced  to  any  cer- 
tain  origin,    or  author."     Every  thing  in  use  in 
this  church,  of  the  commencement  of  which  we 


377 

are  ignoranf,  must  be  ascribed  to  Uie  apostles 
without  doubt,  and  without  further  proof.  And 
then  he  descends  to  particular  doctrines  and  rites, 
which,  according  to  this  sweeping  rule,  we  must 
receive,  as  handed  down  by  tradition,  from  the 
apostles  ;  among  which  are,  *'  The  oblation  of  thfe 
Sacrifice  of  the  altar,  Unction  with  Chrism  or  the 
holy  oil,  invocation  of  saints,  the  merit  of  good 
works,  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  pontifi",  the 
consecration  of  the  water  in  baptism,  the  sacra* 
ment  of  confirmation,  of  orders,  of  matrimony, 
prayers  for  the  dead,  extreme  unction,  auricular 
Confession,  and  satisfaction,  &c.  But  beside  these, 
there  are  innumerable  other  things  which  are  held 
sacred  by  the  Romish  church,  which  cannot  be 
proved  from  Scripture,  such  as  the  mutilation  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  the 
distinction  of  meats,  purgatory,  pilgrimages,  indul- 
gences, the  worship  of  images,  and  relics,  the 
canonization  of  saints,  &c.  &c.  Now,  she  cannot 
pretend  that  all  these  were  received  from  the 
apostles,  for  some  of  them  are  in  direct  repugnance 
to  the  plain  declarations  of  Scripture  ;  and  the 
occasion  of  the  introduction  of  some  of  them  is 
matter  of  history,  and  acknowledged  by  the  Ro* 
manists  themselves.  And  surely,  it  is  not  a  very 
convincing  argument  of  the  apostolical  origin  of 
doctrines  or  ceremonies,  that  we  do  not  know  when 
they  took  their  rise. 
Bufe  the  argument  pow  undef  consideration,  r^. 


378 

iinquishes  this  ground,  and  goes  back  to  the  Scrip- 
tures  as  the  foundation  of  faith,  but  insists,  that  the 
true  interpretation  of  Scripture  can  only  be  known 
by  tradition.     On  which  we  remark  ; — 

That  many  thin2;s  in  Scripture  are  so  clear, 
that  they  stand  in  need  of  no  interpretation. 
They  are  already  as  plain  as  any  exposition  can 
make  them.  Who  wants  tradition  to  teach  him, 
that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  ;  was  born  of  the 
virgin  Mary  ;  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate  ; 
rose  again  the  third  day  ;  and  ascended  to  hea- 
ven, whence  he  will  come  again  to  judge  the 
world  }  If  we  cannot  understand  the  plain  de- 
clarations of  Scripture,  neither  could  we  under- 
stand an  exposition.  If  we  cannot  know  what  the 
apostles  and  evangelists  mean,  in  their  plainest 
declarations,  when  we  have  their  very  words  be- 
fore us,  how  shall  we  know  what  is  the  meaning 
#f  the  vague  language  of  tradition  .'' 

There  are  many  parts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, of  which  tradition  has  handed  down  no  in- 
terpretation. If  we  wish  to  know  their  meaning, 
it  is  in  vain  that  we  apply  to  the  Fathers,  for  in- 
struction. They  are  silent.  They  have  not  com- 
mented on  these  books  and  passages.  To  which 
of  the  Fathers  shall  I  go  for  an  exposition  of  the 
book  of  Revelation  ^  Or  will  the  Pope  himself, 
aided  by  all  his  cardinals,  or  by  an  oecumenical 
Council,  undertake  to  give  us  the  true  interpreta- 
fion  of  this  prophecy  ?     It  cannot  be   true,  that 


379 

Scripture  can  be  interpreted  only  by  tradition  ; 
unless  we  agree  to  give  up  a  large  part  of  the  New 
Testament,  as  wholy  incapable  of  being  under- 
stood. 

We  cannot  build  our  faith  on  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Fnthcrs,  in  all  cases,  because  they  often 
fall  into  palpable  mistakes,  which  is  not  denied  by 
the  Romanists  themselves  ;  and  again,  they  differ 
among  themselves.  How  then  can  it  be  known 
what  that  interpretation  is,  which  was  received 
from  the  apostles  ?  Must  I  follow  Justin,  or 
Iren^.us,  or  Clement  of  Alexandria  ?  or  must 
1  believe  in  all  llie  allegorical  interpretations  con- 
tained in  the  Homilies  of  Origen,  according  to 
which,  the  plainest  passages  arc  made  to  mean 
something  perfectly  foreign  from  the  literal  sense  ? 
If  the  tradition  which  brings  down  this  interpreta- 
tion is  not  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers, 
where  is  it  ?  And  how  has  it  come  down  .''  Surely 
that  which  was  never  mentioned  nor  recorded  b}'^ 
the  ancient  church,  ought  not  to  be  received  as  an 
apostolical  tradition  ;  for  as  the  great  Chilling- 
worth  says,  "A  silent  tradition,  is  like  a  silent 
thunder,"  a  thing  inconceivable.  But  we  shall 
be  told,  that  the  church  has  preserved  this  deposit, 
and  can  testify  that  it  was  derived  from  the  apos- 
tles. What  church  ?  And  where  is  her  testimo- 
ny ?  And  how  do  we  know,  that  among  such  a 
mass  of  traditions,  some  have  not  crept  in,  which 
originated   in  other  sources  than   the  teaching  of 


380 

Christ  and  his  apostles  ?  Who  kept  these  tradi- 
tions securely  when  the  church  was  overrun  with 
Gothic  ignorance  and  barbarism  ?  Who  kept  this 
treasure  unadulterated,  when  Arianism  was  pre- 
dominant ?  If  there  be  such  an  oral  law,  contain- 
ing an  exposition  of  Scripture,  how  has  it  hap- 
pened that  there  have  existed  such  dissensions 
about  doctrine,  in  the  Romish  church  itself?  And 
as  it  is  acknowledged,  that  many  usages  of  the 
church  have  had  their  origin,  long  since  the  apos. 
ties'  days,  what  authority  is  there  for  these  inno- 
vations ?  If  the  authority  of  the  church  was  suffi- 
cient to  establish  these,  it  could  as  easily  establish 
all  the  rest,  and  there  is  no  need  of  apostolical  tra- 
dition :  but  if  there  is  a  distinction  to  be  made  be- 
tween observances  derived  from  the  apostles, 
and  such  as  have  been  invented  by  men,  how 
can  we  draw  the  line  between  them  ? 

An  implicit  believer  in  the  infallibility  of  the 
Pope,  would  deem  it  sufficient  to  answer,  that  his 
holiness,  at  Rome,  knows  certainly  what  is  apos- 
tolical, and  what  not  ;  what  is  obligatory,  and 
what  not.  All  we  have  to  do,  is  to  believe  what 
he  believes,  or  what  he  tells  us  to  believe.  Now, 
without  disputing  the  pretensions  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  to  such  extraordinary  knowledge,  at  pre- 
sent, I  would  ask,  if  we  must  go  to  an  infallible 
judge  to  learn  what  are  appstolical  traditions,  what 
use  is  there  in  traditions  ?  Why  does  not  this  in- 
fallible teacher  declare,  at  once,  what  is  truth,  in  all 


381 


cases,  without  the  trouble  of  searching  into  antiqui- 
ty after  traditions,    which  never  can  be  found  ? 

But  if  it  be  alleged,  that  ihe  traditions  which 
ought  to  be  received  as  the  rule  of  our  faith,  are 
such  as  were  universal,  and  concerning  which, 
there  cannot  be  any  doubt,  I  answer,  that  many 
such  traditions  may  indeed  be  found,  but  what  do 
they  respect  ?  Those  very  doctrines  which  are  most 
plainly  and  frequently  inculcated  in  Scripture  ; 
and  of  which  we  need  no  exposition  ;  for  as  was 
said  before,  they  are  expressed  as  perspicuously 
as  any  exposition  can  be.  But  it  affords  us  satis- 
faction to  find  the  church  openly  professing,  from 
the  beginning,  those  truths,  which  we  find  record- 
ed in  Scripture.  If  it  does  not  add  confirmation 
to  our  faith,  in  these  points,  it  gives  us  pleasure 
to  find  such  a  harmony  in  the  belief  of  true  Chris- 
tians. 

Finally,  it  is  dangerous  to  rely  upon  traditions.  ■ 
Heretics,  in  all  ages,  sheltered  themselves  under 
this  doctrine.  Those  with  whom  Tertullian  con- 
tended,alleged, that  the  apostles  did  not  know  every 
thing  necessary,  as  Christ  declared  he  had  many 
things  to  say,  which  they  could  not  bear  yet  ;  or, 
there  were  some  things  which  they  did  not  teach 
publicly,  nor  commit  to  writing,  but  communi- 
cated privately  to  a  few  chosen  persons,  and  there- 
fore they  declined  the  autiiority  of  Scripture.  The 
same  is  true  of  those  against  whom  Irena'-us  wrote. 
They  appealed  from  Scripture  to  tradition,  and  he 

K    K 


382 

answers  thera  by  showing,  that  universal  traditioh 
was  conformable  to  Scripture. 

Eusebius  informs  us,  that  Artemon,  who  assert- 
ed  that  Christ  was  a  mere  man,  pretended  that  he 
had  learnt,  from  tradition,  that  all  the  apostles 
were  of  his  opinion.* 

Thus  also,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  says,  <'That 
Basilides  gloried  in  having  received  his  doctrine, 
through  a  few  hands,  from  Peter  ;  and  Valeniinus 
gloried,  in  having  been  instructed  by  one  who  had 
been  a  disciple  of  Paul,  "t  The  Marcionltes  pro- 
fessed to  have  received  their  doctrines  from  St. 
Matthew.  The  Arians,  as  appears  by  an  oration 
against  them  by  Athanasius,  appealed  to  tradition, 
for  the  confirmation  of  their  tenets. 

In  fact,  this  doctrine  of  unwritten  traditions,  has 
been  justly  compared  to  Pandora's  box,  which  is 
calculated  to  fill  the  world  with  evils  and  heresies. 

But  not  only  have  heretics  availed  themselves  of 
this  corrupt  fountain,  but  good  men  have  been  de- 
ceived by  lending  too  credulous  an  ear  to  tradi- 
tions. 

Papias,  one  of  the  hearers  of  John  the  apostle, 
was  a  great  collector  of  traditions.  He  was  inquis- 
itive to  know  what  each  of  the  apostles  had,  at  any 
time, said;  and  there  was  some  chance  of  coming  at 
the  truth  from  oral  tradition,  by  one  who  was  a 
hearer  of  one  of  the  apostles.  But  what  valuable  in- 
formation did  this  good  man  obtain  by  all  his  inqui- 
ries, which  is  not  in  Scripture  .-*  Let  Eusebius  an- 
*  Liber  v.  c.  28.  f  Strom,  xiii. 


383 

swer:  "Papias  adopted  many  paradoxical  opinions 
by  giving  heed  to  unwritten  traditions,  {ira^a5o(ttu^ 
«7^a(p8,)  and  received  certain  strange  parables  of 
our  Saviour,  mixed  with  fabulous  things,  among 
which  was  the  error  of  the  Chiliasts  ;  by  which 
many  other  excellent  men  were  deceived, paying  too 
much  deference  to  antiquity  and  unwritten  tradi- 
tions. Even  such  men  as  Irenaeus,  Apollinarius, 
Tertullian,Victorinus,  and  Lactantius,  were  misled 
by  these  ancient  traditions,  so  that  they  adopted  an 
opinion  for  which  there  is  no  foundation  in  Sacred 
Scripture,and  not  only  so, but  which  is  repugnant  to 
the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. " 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  too,  than  whom  no  man 
of  the  ancient  church  was  more  celebrated,  speaks 
of  certain  persons  who  had  taken  much  pams  to 
preserve  the  sayings  of  the  apostles,  handed  down 
by  tradition,  among  whom  he  mentions  a  Hebrew, 
who  is  supposed  to  be  Papias  ;  but  when  he  comes 
to  tell  us  what  he  had  learned  from  these  unwrit- 
ten traditions,  which  is  not  contained  in  Scripture, 
it  amounts  to  this,  "That  there  was  a  public  doc- 
trine %nd  a  secret  doctrine  ;  the  one  esotericy  and 
the  other  exoteric ;  that  the  former  was  commit- 
ted to  writing,  and  was  in  the  hands  of  all  ;  but  the 
latter  was  communicated  secretly  to  chosen  disciples. 
And  if  we  may  judge  of  the  secret  doctrine  handed 
down  by  tradition ,  from  some  speci  mens  of  it  which 
he  had  learned,  we  will  not  appreciate  unwritten 
traditions  very  highly,    in  comparison   with    the 


384 

written  word.  Among  these,  is  the  Opinion,  that 
the  Greek  Philosophy  answered  the  same  purpose 
as  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  was  a  schoolmaster  to 
bring  those  that  professed  it  unto  Christ  ;  that  this 
philosophy,  as  well  as  the  Law  of  Moses,  was  able 
to  justify  men  ;-and  that  there  were  many  ways  of 
obtaining  life.  From  the  same  tradition,  he  teach- 
es, that  Christ's  ministry  was  finished  in  one  year, 
which  opinion  Irenasus  ascribes  to  heretics,  and  de- 
clares it  as  a  tradition  from  John,  that  Christ,  when 
he  was  crucified,  was  nearly  fifty  years  of  age. 
Clement  relates  it  as  a  tradition,  "That  the  apostles 
after  their  death,  went  and  preached  to  the  dead, 
who  descended  with  the  apostles  into  a  place  of 
water,  and  then  came  up  alive,"  and  many  other 
like  things.* 

There  is  much  reason  to  believe,  that  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  church,  which  commenced  about 
this  time,  was  owing  to  a  disposition  which  began 
to  be  indulged,  of  lending  too  credulous  an  ear 
to  traditions,   and  to  Apocryphal  writings. 

But  among  the  Fathers,  no  one  gave  himself  up 
so  entirely  to  unwritten  traditions,  and^  Apocry- 
phal fables,  as  Epiphanius.  His  writings  abound 
with  things  of  this  kind  :  but  who  would  assert 
that  we  are  bound  to  receive  these  stories,  as  arti- 
cles of  faith  ?  Even  the  Romish  church,  with 
all  her  store  of  legends,  will  not  receive  as  true 

*  Strom.  Lib.  If. 


385 

and  necessary,  all  that  is  handed  down  by  tradi- 
tion from  one  and  another  of  the  Fatluwa. 

From  what  has  been  saiti  therefore,  the  conclu- 
sion is  clear,  that  the  Scriptures  are  complete 
without  unwritten  traditions:  that  no  articles  of 
faith,  nor  institutions  of  worship,  concerning 
which  the  Scriptures  are  silent,have  cO'Ue  down  to 
us  by  tradition  ;  that  wo  have  uniform,  universal 
tradition, on  those  points,  whirh  are  plainly  taught 
in  Scripture  ;  that  many  thi  y;s  pretended  to  have 
been  received  from  the  AjjOstles  by  tradition,  can- 
not be  tractd  to  tht^m  ;  and  that  many  other  things 
made  equally  nectssarv  by  the  Romish  church,  can 
be  proved  to  have  orij:;inatod  many  hundreds  of 
years  since  the  death  of  il»o  Apostles.  It  has- also' 
been  shown,  that  there  is  no  ct-rtain  method  ofdis- 
tingiuishitijj;  between  what  is  apostolical,  and  what 
has  been  derived  from  other  sources, unless  we  make 
the  Scriptures  our  standard  ;  that  tradition  cannot 
be  our  guide  even  in  inttrpreting  Scripture  ;  and 
finally,  that  tradition  has  been  the  common  refuge  of 
heretics,  and  has  greatly  misled  good  and  orthodox 
men,  by  inducing  theui  to  adopt  wild  theories,  fab- 
ulous stories,  and  paradoxical  opinions,  some  of 
which,  are  directly  repugnant  to  Scripture. 

The  traditions  of  the  Romish  Church  stand  on  no 
higher  ground,  than  the  traditions  of  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour  j  but  he 
rejected  these  traditions  as  having  no  authority, and 
as  making  void  the  law  of  God.      Why  doyCf  says 

K    K    3 


SS6 


Christ,  also  transgress  the  commandment  of 
God  by  your  tradition  ? —  Thus  have  ye  m,ade 
the  commandment  of  God  of  none  effect  by  your 
tradition. — Howbeit^  in  vain  do  they  worship 
mcy  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments 
of  men.  The  -same  questions  and  reproofs  may 
with  equal  propriety  be  addressed  lo  the  Pope,  and 
the  doctors  of  the  Romish  church.  But  we  say, 
To  the  Law  and  to  the  testimony ;  if  they  speak 
not  according  to  these^  it  is  because  there  is  no 
^ight  in  them.  '"  ^ 

Thus  have  we  brought  this  work  to  a  close  ;  and 
it  affords  us  pleasure  to  believe,  that  most  who 
read  these  pages,  will  be  convinced,  thai  the  Bi- 
ble   IS    A    COMPLETE    RULE,    BOTH    OF    FAITH    AND 

PRACTICE.  The  Law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect. 
What  a  treasure  havf  we  in  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments! Here,  God  speaks  to  us  by  his  lively 
oracles.  The  truth  is  taught  so  plainly,  in  this 
Sacred  volume,  that  he  who  runs  may  read.  The 
way  of  life  is  delineated  so  distinctly,  that  the 
wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool, shall  not  err  therein. 
We  have,  indeed,  a  sure  word  of  prophecy,  to 
which  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as  to  a  light 
shining  in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day  dawn, 
and  the  day  star  arise  in  your  hearts. 

There  is  nothing  lacking  to  him  that  is  in  pos- 
session  of  the  Scriptures  ;  for,  t/2ll  Sanpture  is 

Matt.  XV.  3,  6.      Mark.  vii.  7.  Isaiah,  viii.  20. 


587 

given  hy  inspiration  of  God^  and  is  profitable 
for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  in- 
struction in  righteousness.  That  the  man  of 
God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto 
all  good  works. 

Let  us  then  be  mrateful  to  God,  and  give  him 
unceasing  thanks  foi^his  precious  deposit,  which 
he  has  committed  to  his  church  ;  and  vvhich  by  his 
Providence  he  hath  preserved  uninjured,  through 
all  the  vicissitudes,  through  which  she  has  passed. 

Let  us  praise  God,  tliat  in  regard  to  us,  that 
night  of  darkness  is  past,  in  which^there  was  a 
famine,  not  of  bread,  nor  of  water,  but  of  the  word 
of  the  Lord  ;  when  the  light  of  this  brilliant 
lamp  was  put  out,  or  rather  <put  under  a  bushel,' 
and  the  feeble  erring  light  of  tradition,  was  sub- 
stituted in  its  place. 

Let  us  be  glad  and  rejoice  that  we  have  lived  to 
see  the  day, when  copies  of  theBible  arc  mulii|)lied, 
and  when  many  run  to  and  fio,  to  circulate  them  ; 
and  let  us  wait  in  assured  hope  for  the  day,  when 

THE   KNOWLEDGE  OF    THE  LoKD  SHALL  COVER  THE 
EARTH,    AS  THE    WATERS    COVER  THE  SEA. EvEN 

so,  COME  Lord  Jesus.     Amen. 
2  Tim,  iii.  10,  17. 


m- 


NOTES. 


note;  A. 

irn.MLM    DIXURIUM    QUART.E    SESSIOXIS,  QLIKTO 
APKILIS   CELEBUAT.E,  CONCILH   TUIDENTINI,  A.  D. 

1546. 

Sacrosancta  cccumcnica  ct  generalis  Ti-iclentina  Synodus,  in  Spi- 

lilu  sancto  legitimo  congregata,  presidentibus  in  eatribus  Apostolicx 

scdis  legatis,    hoc  sibi  ante   omnia  pcrpetuo  proponens,   \t  sublatis 

omnibus  erroribus,   puritas  ipsa  Euangelii  in  Ecclesia  conservctur, 

(juod  promissuni  anl^  per  Froi)iietas  in  Scripturis  Sanctis,  Dominus 

tioster  lesus  Cliristus  Dei   filius  proprio  or<^   primum  pronuulgavit, 

deinde  per  suos  Apostolos,  tanquam  fonfem  oinnis  salutaris  verilatis 

ct  morum  disciplina:  oinni  creaturx  prxdicari  iussit,  perspiciensque 

banc    veritatcm   et  disciplinani  contineri   in   libris    scriptus,    ct  sine 

icripto  traditionibus,  qua:  ex  ipsius  (Jhristi  ore  ab  Apostolis  accop- 

tx,  aut  ab  ipsis  Apostolis  Spii'itu  sancto  dictante,  quasi  per  manus 

tradittc  ad  nos  vsque  pei-venerunt,  orlliodoxoruni   Patruin  exempla 

secuta,  omnes  libros,  tam  veleris,quknj  noui  'I'estnincnti  (cum  vtrius- 

que  vnus  Ueus  sit  autor)  ncc  non  traditiones  illas,   turn,  ad  fidcra  turn 

ad  mores  pcrtinentes,  tanquam  vcl  ore  tcnus  a  Christo,  tcI  ii  Spiritu 

sancto  dictataset  continua  succe ssione  inecclesiacatholicaconsen'atas, 

pari  |iictatis  affcctUjac  reucrenlia  suscipitac  veneratur.  Sacrorum  vero 

librorum  inilicem,  liuic  •leci-elo  asscribendum  ccnsuit :  nccui  dubitutio 

fiuboriri  possit,  quinani  sint,  qui  ab  ipsa  Svnodo  susoipiantur,    Sunt 

vei-6  infVk  scripti  I'eslamenti   vetcris.  Quinque  libri  Moysi,    scilicet 

GenesiSjExodus,  Leviticus,  Nunieri,  Deuteronomiuin,  Deinde,  losuc, 

ludicum,   Kuth,  Quatuor  Rtgum,  Faralipomenon  duo,  Esdrse  duo, 

piimus   scilicet  et  secundus,  qui  dicitur  Nclieiiiias,  Thobias,  ludith, 

Ester,  lob,  Fsalterium  Davidicum,  centum  quincjuaginta  {'salmorum, 

Parabolse  Salomonis,  Ecclesuistes,  Canticum  Cunticorum,  Sapientia, 

Ecclesiasticus,   Isaias,  Hici-eniias,  [Jarueh,    F.zccbiel,   Daniel,   duo- 

decim  Froplictx  niitmns,  s;  ilic  et.  Osoo,  lool,  Amos,  Abdias,  lonas, 

Miclieas,   Nahum,  Habacuc,   Sophonias,  Aggeus,  Z.-icliarias,  Mala- 

fhias.  Duo  Macbabieorum,  primus  scilicet  et  secundus.   Teslamenti 

noui,  Quatuor  Euangelia,   secundum  Matthaium,    .Marcum,  Lucam 

et    lo.innem.    Acta   \postolorum    a  Luca   Evangelista    conscripta, 

•^uatuordecim  Epistolae  beali  Pauli  Apostoli,  scilicet  ad  Koinanos 


392 


ad  Coi'intliios  (luce,  ad  Galatas,  ad  Ephesios,  ad  Philippenses,  ad 
Colossenses,  ad  Thessalonisenses  duse,  ad  Timothseum  duse,  ad  Ti- 
tiun,  ad  Philemonem,  ad  Hebrieos,  Petri  Apostoli  dua,  loannis 
Apostoli  tres,  lacobi  vna,  vna  ludae  A  postoli,  Apocalypsis  loannis 
Apostoli. 

Si  quis  aiitem  libros  ipsos  integros,  cum  omnibus  suis  partibuS 
prout  in  Ecclesia  catholica  legi  consueverunt,  et  in  veteri  vulgata 
Latina  editione  habentur,  pro  sacris  et  canonicis  non  susceperit, 
et  Iraditiones  prfedictas  sciens  et  prudens  ccntempserit  anathema  sit. 

Omnes  itaque  intelligant,  quo  ordine  et  via  ipsa  Synodus  post 
jactura  fidei  confessionis  ifundamentum  sit  progressura,  et  quibus 
potissimum  testimoniis  ac  prsesidiis,  in  confirmandis  dogmatibus  et 
instaurandis  in  Ecclesia  moribus  sit  usura. 

Which  may  be  thus  translated.  "  The  holy,  oecumenical, 
and  general  Council  of  Trent,  legitimately  convened  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  under  the  presidency  of  three  legates  of  the 
Apostolic  see,  constantly  proposing  this  before  all  things^ 
that  all  errors  being  taken  away,  the  Gospel  in  its  purity 
may  be  preserved  in  the  Church,  which  was  promised  before 
by  the  Prophets  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  which  was  pro- 
mulgated by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  with 
his  own  mouth  :  moreover,  he  commanded  it  to  be  preached 
to  every  creature  by  his  apostles,  as  the  fountain  of  oil  sav- 
ing truth  and  moral  discipline;  which  truth  and  discipline 
he  provided  should  be  contained  in  the  books  of  Scripture, 
and  in  unwritten  traditions,  received  from  the  mouth  of 
Christ  by  the  Apostles,  or  from  the  Apostles  speaking  by 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  handed  down  to  us; 
therefore  this  Synod  following  the  example  of  the  orthodox 
Fathers,  receives  and  venerates  with  equal  pious  affection 
and  reverence,  all  the  books  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament (for  one  God  is  the  author  of  both  :)  Likewise  those 
traditions  relating  to  faith  and  manners,  which  were  receiv- 
ed from  the  mouth  of  Christ  himself,  or  from  his  inspired 
Apostles,  and  which  have  been  preserved  in  an  uninterrupt- 
ed succession,  in  the  Catholic  Church.      Moreover,  this 


393 

SvNOD,  judges  it  proper  to  give  a  catalogue  of  the  Sacietl 
Books,  lest  any  doubt  should  arise  in  the  minds  of  any  res- 
pecting THE  BOOKS  received  by  thoni,  the  names  of  wliicli 
are  here  inserted  in  this  decree;  viz.  The  Five  Books  of 
,Moses,  Gen.  ^Exodus,  Lev.  JVumb.  Deut. — Next,  Joshua, 
Judges,  Ruth,  Four  buohs  of  Kings,  Two  of  Chronicles.  Tico 
of  Lira,  viz.  The  First,  uml  the  Second  wjiich  is  called  Ne. 
hemiah,  Tobit,  Judith,  Esther,  Job,  CL.  Psalms  of  David, 
Proverbs  of  Solomon,  Eccttsiasles,  Song  (f  Songs,  Wisdom, 
Ecclcsiasticus,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Baruch,  Ezekiel,  Daniel, 
Twelve  J\Iinor  Prophets,  viz.  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Obadiah, 
Jonali,  J\Iicah,  JVahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah,  Haggai, 
Zechariah,  Jilalachi,  Two  of  J\Jcucabees,  First  and  Second. 
Of  the  New  Testament,  The  Four  Gospels,  viz.  'Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  John  ;  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  written  by 
Luke  the  Evangelist ;  Fourteen  Epistles  of  the  blessed  Apos- 
tle Paul,  viz.  T>  the  Romans,  To  the  Corinthians,  Two ;  To 
the  Galatians ;  To  the  Ephesians  ;  To  the  Phillippians  ;  To 
the  Colossians ;  To  the  Theasalonians,  Two  ;  To  Timothy, 
Two  ;  To  Titus ;  To  Philemon ;  To  the  Hebrews.  Of  the 
Apostle  Peter,  Two.  Of  the  Apostle  John,  Three.  Of  James 
One.  Of  the  Apostle  Jude,  One.  The  Apocalypse,  o/' John, 
the  Apostle. 

"But  if  any  one  shall  not  receive  as  Canonical  and  Sacred, 
all  these  books,  witjj  all  their  parts,  as  they  are  used  to  be 
read  in  the  Catholic  Church ;  or  shall  knowingly  and  inten- 
tionally contemn  any  of  the  aforesaid  traditions,  let  liim  be 
anathema. 

"  Hence  all  may  understand,  in  what  order  and  way,  the 
Synod,  after  laying  the  foundation  of  the  Confession  of 
thoir  Faith,  will  proceed;  and  what  testimonies  and  proofs 
Uiey  will  especially  use  in  confirming  doctrines,  and  in  the 
reformation  of  manners,  in  the  church." 


L  L 


394 

NOTE    B. 
PASSAGE  PROM  TERTUJLLIAN. 

The  original  of  this  passage  is  as  follows,  "  Age  jam, 
qui,  voles  curiositatem  melius  exercere  in  negotio  salutis 
luas  percurre  Ecclesias  apostolicas,  apud  quas  ipsse  adhuc 
cathedrae  prsesident:  apud  quas  ipste  authentic.^  literj^ 
eorum  recitantur,  sonantes  vocem,  et  reprasentantes  faci- 
em  uniuscujuscunque.  Proxima  est  tibi  Achaia?  habes 
Corinthum.  Si  non  longe  es  a  Macedonia,  habes  Philip- 
pos,  habes  Thessalonicenses.  Si  potes  Asiam  tendere, 
liabes  Ephesum.  Si  autem  Italise  adjaces,  habes  Romam^ 
unde  nobis  quoque  auctoritatas  prajsto  est." 

De  Prxscnp.  cap.  36. 


NOTE    C. 

GOSPEL  OF  THE  NaZAREISES. 

There  ia  no  Apocryphal  book  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  has  been  so  much  spoken  of  both  by  the  ancients 
and  moderns,  as  The  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes.  By 
some,  not  only  of  the  Romanists,  but  also  of  the  Protes- 
tants, it  has  been  exalted  very  nearly  to  an  equality  with 
the  Canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament.  It  seems 
necessary,  therefore,  to  examine  its  claims,  with  more  at- 
tention than  is  requisite  in  the  case  of  other  books  of  this 
class. 

This  gospel  was  known  among  the  ancients  under  several 
different  titles.  It  was  sometimes  called,  the  gospel  ac- 
cording TO  the  twelve  apostles  ;  THE  GOSPEL  OF  Bar- 
THOLEMEW;    THE     GOSPEL    ACCORDING     TO     THE    HEBREWS; 

THE  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites,  &.c. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  some,  that  this  is  the  gospel  to  which 


395 

Paul  alludes,  (Jal.  i.  6,  where  lie  spcaksof  tviol he v  gospel. 
However  this  may  be,  if  we  credit  Eusebius,  we  must  be- 
lieve, that  it  existed  as  early  as  tlio  beginning:  of  the  second 
century  ;  for  he  represents  Hcgcsippus  as  writing  some 
things  concerning  the  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  and 
St/iHans.* 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  cites  from  it  the  following  passage, 
He  who  (ulm<res  sh<tll  reign,  and  hr  who  reigns  sluill  be  at  ease. 

Origen  speaks  of  it  in  this  manner,  "  If  any  one  will  re- 
ceive the  Gospel  according  to  tlic  Hebrews,  in  which  ouf 
Saviour  says.  The  HolyGhost  my  mother  lately  took  me  by  one 
fifmy  hairs,  and  led  me  to  the  great  mountain  Thabor."  And 
in  another  place,  ''  It  is  written  in  a  certain  gospel  whicli 
is  entitled,  according  to  the  Hebrews,  (if  anyone  be  pleased 
to  receive  it  not  as  of  authority,  but  only  for  illustration  of 
the  present  question,)  ^  certain  rich  man  said  to  Christ,  -u-hat 
good  thing  shall  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  life  ?  He  said  to  him,  0 
pian  keep  thi  Latv  and  the  I'rophets :  he  answered  Idm,  that  I  have 
done  ;  he  said  to  ftirn,  go  sell  all  things  that  thou  hast,  and  distri- 
bnle  among  the  poor,  and  come  andfolloiv  me.  The  rich  man  here- 
npon  began  to  scratch  his  head,  and  was  displeased.  JInd  the 
Jjord  said  unto  him,  hotv  can  you  say  that  you  have  kept  the  LmiIi 
and  the  Prophets  ?  seeing  it  is  ivritten  in  the  Ixitv,  thou  shall  love 
thy  neighbour  as  thyself;  but  behold,  many  of  thy  brethren,  children 
of  Abraham,  arc  clothed  with  nnstiress,  and  ready  to  perish  for  hun- 
ger, w/ule  thy  home  abounds  iinth  all  sorts  of  delicacies,  and  nothing 
is  sent  out  of  it  to  them.  .  ind  turning  about,  he  said  to  his  disciple, 
Simon,  who  sat  by  him,  Simon  son  of  Joanna,  it  is  easier  for  a  camel 
to  pass  through  the  eye  of  a  needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into 
the  hingdom  of  heaven.^ 

Eusebius,  speaking  of  Apocrypiial  and  spurious  books, 
says,  "In  this  number,  some  have  placed  the  gospel  ac- 
'ORntNO  TO  THE  Hebrews,  with  which,  thoy  of  the  Jews 
who  profess  Christianity  are  very  much  delighted."  And 
speaking  of  the  Ebionites,  he  says,  "  They  made  use  only 

•  Em.  Hist.  Lib.  iv.  p.  58.  t  Strom.  Lib.  i».  p.  380. 

'.   Horn,  in  Jc-rcm. 


396 

of  that  which  is  called,  the  Gospel  according  to  the  He- 
brews, very  little  esteeming  any  others."* 

Epiphanius  has  left  several  testimonies  respecting  this 
Gospel;  among  which  are  the  following:  "The  Naza- 
renes  have  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  most  entire  in  the 
Hebrew  language ;  for  this  is  still  preserved  among  them. 
as  it  was  at  first,  in  Hebrew  characters.  But  I  know  not 
whether  they  have  taken  away  the  genealogy  from  Abra- 
ham to  Christ." 

In  another  place,  speaking  of  the  Ebionites,  he  sayS) 
"They  also  receive  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew. 
For  this  both  they  and  the  Cerinthians  make  use  of,  and  no 
other.  They  call  it  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  \ 
for  the  truth  is,  that  Matthew  is  the  only  one  of  the  New' 
Testament  writers,  who  published  his  gospel  and  preach- 
ing in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  Hebrew  characters." 

And  again,  "  In  that  Gospel  which  they  (the  Ebionites) 
Jiave  called,  according  to  St.  Matthew,  which  is  not  entire 
and  perfect,  but  corrupted  and  curtailed,  and  which  they 
call  the  Hebrew  Gospel,  it  is  written.  That  there  was  a 
certain  man  called  Jesus, — and  he  being  about  thirty  years  of 
a-ge,  inade  choice  of  us.  And  coming  to  Capernaum,  he  en- 
tered into  the  house  of  Simon  called  Peter,  and  opening  his 
mouth  said^  When  I  passed  by  the  lake  of  Tiberias,  I  chose  John 
and  James  the  sons  of  Zebedce,  and  Simon  and  Andrew,  and 
Thaddetts,  and  Simon  Zelotes,  and  Judas  Iscariot,  and  thou 
Matthew,  sitting  at  the  receipt  of  custom,  I  called,  and  thou 
didst  follow  me.  I  will  therefore  that  ye  be  my  twelve  apos- 
tles, for  a  testimony  to  Israel The  meat   of 

John  the  Baptist,  according  to  this  gospel,  was,  wild  honey, 
the  taste  of  which  was  like  manna,  or  as  cakes  made  with 
honey  and  oil.  Thus  they  change  the  true  account  into  a 
falsehood,  and  for  locusts,  put  cakes  made  with  oil  and 
honey."  "The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  was  this.  It  came 
to  pass  in  the  days  of  Herod, ^'  &lc-  After  relating  the  bap- 
*  Ecc.  Hist.  Lib.  iii.  c.  25,  27. 


397 

tisrn  of  Christ,  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  other  Gospel,  ex 
ccpt  that  it  asserts,  that  the  voice  from  heaven,  saying. 
This  is  my  beloved  Son,  &-C.  was  repoated,  it  frocs  on  to  say, 
T/iat  liereupon  John  fell  douii  before  him,  and  said,  O  Lord,  J 
pray  thee  baptize  me,  but  he  Idndered  him,  saying  that  it  is  Jit  that 
all  these  tldngs  should  be  fulfilled.  "See,"  says  Epiphanius, 
"  how  their  false  doctrine  appears  every  where,  how  all 
things  are  imperfect,  disordered,  and  williour  any  truth  !' 
.So  also  Cerinthus  and  Carpocratos,  usinir  this  same  Gospel 
of  theirs,  would  ))rove  that  Christ  proceeded  from  the  seed 
of  Joseph  and  Mary.  "• 

But  tiie  testimony  of  Jerome  respecting  this  Gospel  is 
the  most  full.  "  Matthew  also  called  Levi,"  says  he,  "who 
became  from  a  publican  an  apot-tle,  was  the  first  who  com- 
posed a  Gospel  of  Christ,  and  for  the  sake  of  those  who  be- 
lieved in  Christ  among  tlie  Jews  wrote  it  in  the  Hebrew 
language  and  letters,  but  it  is  uncertain  who  translated  it 
into  Greek.  Moreover,  the  Hebrew  (copy)  is  to  this  time 
preserved  m  tlie  library  of  Cffisarea,  which  Pamphilus,  the 
martyr,  with  much  dilijrence.  collected.  The  Nazarenes 
who  live  in  Beroea,  a  city  of  Syria,  and  made  use  ol  this 
volume,  granted  me  the  favour  of  writing  it  out.  In  which 
(Gospel)  there  is  this  observable,  that  wherever  the  Evan- 
gelist either  cites  himselt,  or  introduces  our  Saviour  as  cit- 
ing, any  passage  out  of  the  Old  Testament,  he  does  not  fol- 
low the  translation  of  the  LXX,  but  the  Hebrew  copies,  of 
which  there  are  these  two  instances,  viz.  Out  of  Eg^ypt  have 
I  called  my  Son;  and.  He  shall  be  called  a  JVazarene." 
This  testimony  is  found  in  Jerome's  life  of  Matthew.  And 
m  his  life  of  James,  wc  find  the  following  account.  "The 
gospel  also,  which  is  called.  According  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
which  I  lately  translated  into  Greek  and  Latin,  and  which 
Origen  often  used,  relates,  That  after  our  Saviour's  rcsur- 
rection,  when  our  Lord  had  given  tlie  linen  cloth  to  the  priest's  sev 
rant,  he  went  to  James  and  appeared  to  lam  ;  for  James  had  rwom, 

*  Epiph.  Hares, 
LL  2 


39S 

thai  he  -.vould  not  eat  bread  from  that  hour  in  ivMch  he  drank  the 
nip  of  the  Lord, Hill  he  shonld  see  the  Lord  risen  from  the  dead. 
And  a  little  after,  the  Lord  said,  Bring  the  table  and  the  bread ; 
and  then  it  is  added,  He  took  the  bread,  and  blessed  it,  U7id  brake  it, 
and  gave  it  to  James  the  Just,  and  said  to  him,  my  brother,  eat  thy 
bread,  for  the  Son  of  man  is  risen  from  the  dead." 

And  in  a  work  against  Pelagius,  he  says,  "  In  the  gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews,  which  is  written  in  the  Chaldo- 
Syriac  language,  which  the  Nazarenes  use,  and  is  that  ac- 
cording to  the  Twelve  Apostles,  or  as  most  think,  accord- 
ing to  Matthew,  which  is  in  the  library  of  Csesarea,  there  is 
the  following  history  :  Jiehold  the  mother  and  brethren  of  Christ 
■ifiake  to  him;  John  the  Baptist  baptizes  for  the  remissio7i  of  sins 
'ct  us  go  and  be  baptized  of  him.  He  said,  in  ivhat  have  I  sinned^ 
that  I  have  need  to  go  and  be  baptized  of  him  ?  Unless  my  sayirig 
this  proceed  perhaps  from  ignorance .  And  in  the  same  Gospel  it  is 
said,  Tf  thy  brother  offend  thee  by  any  word,  and  make  thee  satis- 
faction, if  it  be  seven  times  in  a  day,  thou  must  forgive  him  .  Simon 
his  disciple  said  unto  him.  What .'  seven  times  in  a  day  ?  7  'he  Lord 
answered  and  said  unto  him,  I  tell  thee  also  till  seventy  times  seven." 

The  same  author,  in  his  commentary  on  Isaiah,  mentions 
this  Gospel  in  the  following  manner;  "According  to  their 
Gospel,  which  is  written  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  read 
by  the  Nazarenes,  the  whole  fountain  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
descended  upon  him.  B'l'sides,  in  thai  Goppel  just  mention- 
ed, we  find  tiiese  things  written.  It  came  to  pass  ivhcn  the 
Lord  ascended  from  the  -zvaters,  the  -whole  fomitain  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  descended  and  rested  upon  him,  and  said  to  him,  .My  son, 
among,  for  during  the  time  of  J  all  the  prophets,  Iivas  ~i<aiting  for  thy 
coming,  that  I  might  rest  upon  thee :  thou  art  my  first  begotten  Son, 
7vh}  shall  reign  to  everlasting  ages." 

And  in  his  commentary  on  Ezekiel,  "  In  that  which  is  en- 
titled, The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  it  is  reckon- 
ed among  the  chief  of  crimes,  for  a  person  to  make  sorrow- 
ful the  heart  of  his  brother." 

In  his  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  he  has  thg 
following;  "In  the  Gospel  which  the  Nazarenes  and  Ebi- 
onites  use,  which  I  lately  translated  out  of  Hebrew  into 


399 

fircck.  and  which  is  by  most  esteemed  tlie  authentic  Gos- 
jiel  of  Matthew,  the  man  who  had  the  withered  hand,  is 
said  to  be  a  mason,  and  prayed  for  relief  in  the  following 
words:  /r;"os  a  mason  who  ^ot  my  livelihood  by  my  hands  ;  I  be- 
nrrch  thee  Jesus,  that  thou  -wouldest  restore  me  to  my  strength,  that 
I  may  no  longei-  thus  scandalously  beg  my  bread. " 

"  In  tlie  Gospel  which  tiie  Nazarencs  use,  for  the  son  of 
Barachiah,  I  find  written,  liie  son  of  Jchoiada."  "  In  this 
Gospel  we  read,  not  that  the  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent, 
but  that  a  lintel  or  beam  of  a  prodigious  size  fell  down." 
"In  the  Hebrew  Gospel  we  read,  that  our  Lord  said  to  his 
disciples.  Be  ye  never  cheerful,  unless  when  you  can  see  your 
brother  in  love.'' 

Concerning  tliis  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  very 
difierent  opinions  have  been  exprcsed  by  learned  men- 
Some  have  even  pretended,  that  if  it  was  now  in  exist- 
ence, it  would  be  gready  superior  to  the  Greek  copy,  but 
generally  it  has  been  considered  Apocryphal,  for  very  good 
reasons,  some  of  which  I  will  now  set  down.     •  , 

1.  It  was  never  received  b\  any  of  the  Fathers  as  Canon- 
ical, nor  citod  as  of  any  authority,  by  any  writer,  during 
the  first  four  centuries. 

For  full  proof  of  the  fact  here  stated,  I  would  refer  the 
reader  to  Jonc-  on  the  Canon,  vol.  iii. 

2.  This  gospel  was  Apocryphal  because  it  contained  se- 
veral things  contrary  to  known  and  undoubted  truths.  Of 
this  sort,  are  the  passages  which  have  been  cited  respect- 
ing Christ's  manner  of  speaking,  in  regard  to  the  baptism 
cf  John.  Also  the  account  which  it  contains  of  the  oath 
of  the  apostle  James;  for  it  is  evident  that  the  disciples 
know  nothing  of  Christ's  resurrection  from  the  dead,  until 
after  that  event  occurred. 

3.  A  third  argument  of  the  Apocryphal  character  of  this 
Gospel,  is  derived  from  the  ludicrous  and  silly  relations 
which  it  contains.     As  that  of  the  rich  man's  scratching  his 


400 

head;  and  the  Holy  Ghost  taking  up  Christ  by  one  of 
his  hairs,  and  carrying  him  to  the  great  mountain  Ta- 
bor, «&c. 

The  most  probable  opinion  of  the  origin  of  this  Gospel  is, 
that  it  was  a  corruption  of  the  original  Hebrew  gospel  of 
Matthew,  by  the  Ebionites.  These  heretics  having  this 
gospel  in  their  possession,  and  having  departed  from  the 
true  faith,  mutilated  the  gosp6l  of  Matthew,  by  striking  out 
such  things  as  were  unfavourable  to  their  heresy,  and  add- 
ing such  fabulous  stories  as  suited  their  purpose.  Of  the 
fragments  which  remain  there  is  not  one  which  agrees  ex- 
actly with  the  authentic  gospel  of  Matthew.  Epiphanius 
expressly  asserts,  that  the  Ebionites  used  the  gospel  of 
Matthew  alone,  and  that  in  Hebrew,  but  not  entire,  but 
corrupted,  and  adulterated  ;  and  that  they  had  taken  away 
the  genealogy  from  the  beginning,  and  commenced  their 
gospel  with  these  words,  Jlnd  it  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of 
Herod,  &c. 


NOTE    D. 

AN  ALPHABETICAL  LIST  OF  APOCRYPHA.L  BOOKS 
MEN  i  lONED  BY  ONE  OH  A.NOTHEK  (JF  THE  FA- 
THERS, WHICH  ARE  NOT  NOW  EXTANT  ;  EX- 
TRACl'EU  FROM    "JONES    ON  THE  CANON." 

Tlie  Acts  of  Andrew. 

The  Gospel  of  Andrew. 

The  Gospel  of  Apelles. 

The  Gospel  according  to  the  Twelve  Apostles. 

The  Gospel  of  Barnabas, 

The  Gospel  of  Bartholomew. 

The  Gospel  of  Basilides. 

The  Gospel  of  Cerinthus. 


401 

The  Revelation  of  Ccrinthus. 

An  Epistle  of  Christ  to  Peter  and  Paul. 

Another  Epistle  of  Christ  produced  by  the  Manichers. 

A  Hymn  which  Christ  taught  his  disciples. 

The  Gospel  accorditig  to  the  Egyptians. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  used  by  the  Ebionites. 

The  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites. 

Tlie  Gospel  of  the  Encratites. 

The  Gospel  of  Eve. 

The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  Book  of  the  Helkesaites. 

The  False  Gospels  of  Hesychius. 

The  Book  of  James. 

The  Acts  of  John. 

The  Gospel  of  Jude. 

The  Gospel  of  Judas  Iscariot. 

Tlie  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  by  Leucius, 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  by  Lentitius. 

Tlie  Arts  of  the  Apostles,  by  Leontius. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  by  Leuthon. 

The  False  Gospels  by  Lucianus. 

The  Gospel  of  Matthias. 

Traditions  of  Matthias. 

The  .^cts  of  the  Apostles,  used  by  the  Mamchees. 

The  Gospel  of  Marcion. 

The   Gospel  of  Merinthus. 

The  Gospel  according  to  toe  Nazarenes. 

The  Gospel  of  Perfection. 

The  Acts  of  Paul. 

Preaching  of  Paul  and  Peter. 

The  Revelation  of  Paul. 

The  Acts  of  Peter. 


402 

The  Doctrine  of  Peter. 

The  Gospel  of  peter. 

The  Judgment  of  Peter. 

Tlie  Preaching  of  Peter. 

The  Revelation  of  peter. 

Tlie  Acts  of  Philip. 

Thf  Gospfl  f  Philip. 

Th,e  Gospel  of  Scythianus. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  by  Sehucus. 

The  Revelation  of  Stephen. 

The  Gospel  of  Tatian. 

The  Gospel  of  Thaddeus. 

The  Gospel  of  Truth. 

Tlie  Acts  of  Thomas. 

The  Gospel  of  Thomas. 

The  Revelation  of  Thomas. 

The  Gospel  of  Valentinus. 

For  an  account  of  the  writers  who  have  mentioned  these 
spurious  works,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Jones  on  the 
Canon,  vol.  I.  part  i.  c.  xx.  But  it  should  be  remem- 
bered, that  all  these  books  are  spoken  of  as  Apocryphal,  bv 
the  writers  who  make  mention  of  them. 


NOTE     E. 

THE  DECREE  OF  POPE   GELASIUS,  CONCERNING 
APOCRYPHAL  BOOKS. 

1.  The  Travels  under  the  name  of  Peter,  which  is  also 
called  the  Eight  Books  of  St.  Clemens,  is  Apocry- 
phal. 


403 


2.  The  Acts  under  the  name  of  Andrew  the  Aposlle,  urt 

Apocryplittl. 

3.  The  Acts   umior  the  name  of  Philip  the  Apostle  are 

Apocrypliul. 

4.  The  Acts  under  tiic  uauio  of  Peter  are  Apocryphal. 

j.     The  Acts  under  the  name  of  Thomas  the  Apostle,  are 
Apocryphal. 

6.  The  Gospel  under  the  name  of  Thaddeus,   is  Apoc- 

ryphal. 

7.  The  Gospel   under  the  name  of  Thomas  the  Apostle, 

is  Apocryphal. 

8.  The  Gospel  under  the  name  of  Barnabas,  is  Apocry- 

phal, 
y.     The  Gospel  under  the  name  of  Bartholomew  is  Apoc- 
ryphal. 

10.  The  Gospel  under  the  name  of  Andrew  the  Apostle, 

is  Apocryphal. 

11.  The  Gospels  corrupted  by  Lucianus  are  Apocryphal. 

12.  The  Gospels  corrupted  by  Hesychius  are  Apocryphal. 

13.  The  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  of  our  Saviour  is  Apocry- 

phal. 

14.  The  Book  of  the  Nativity  of  our  Saviour  is  Apocry- 
.   phal. 

15.  The  Book  called  the  Shepherd  is  Apocryphal. 

IG.     All  the  Books  made  by  Lentitius  the  disciple  of  tiie 
Devil,  are  Apocryphal 

17.  The  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  are  Apocryphal. 

18.  The  Revelation  of  Thomas  is  Apocryphal. 

19.  The  Revelation  of  Paul  is  Ajiocrylial. 

20.  The  Revelation  of  Steplien  is  Apocryphal. 

21.  The  Travels,  or  Acts  of  Mary  arc  Apocryphal. 

22.  The  Book  called  the  Lots  of  the  Apostles  is  Apocry- 

phal. 

23.  The  Book  called  the  Praise  of  th<?  Apostles  is  .Vpocry- 

phal. 


404 


24.  The  Book  of  the  Canon  of  the  Apostles  is  Apocryphal. 

25.  The  Letters  of  Jesus  to  king  Abgarus  is  Apocryphal. 


NOTE    F. 

CORRESPONDENCE  OF  CHRIST  AND  ABGARUS. 

.?  copy -of  a  letter  ■written  by  King  Abgarus  to  Jesics,  mid  sent  to 
him  by  Ananias,  his  footman,  to  Jerusalem. 

Abgarus,  king  of  Edessa,  to  Jesus  the  good  Saviour,  who 
appears  at  Jerusalem,  greeting.  I  have  been  informed  con- 
cerning you  and  your  cures,  which  are  performed  without 
the  use  of  medicines  and  herbs.  For  it  is  reported  that  you 
cause  the  blind  to  see,  the  lame  to  walk,  do  both  cleanse 
lepers,  and  cast  out  unclean  spirits  and  devils,  and  restore 
them  to  health  who  have  been  long  diseased,  and  raisest 
up  the  dead :  all  which  when  I  heard,  I  was  persuaded  of 
one  of  these  two,  viz.  either  that  you  are  God  himself 
descended  from  heaven,  who  do  these  things,  or  a  Son  of 
God.  On  this  account  therefore  I  have  wrote  to  you,  ear- 
nestly to  desire  you  would  take  the  trouble  of  a  journey 
hither,  and  cure  a  disease  which  I  am  under  For  I  hear 
the  Jews  ridicule  you,  and  intend  you  mischief.  My  city 
is  indeed  small,  but  neat,  and  large  enougli  for  us  both. 

The  atisiuer  of  Jesus  by  Ananias  the  footman  to  Abgarus  the  king. 
Abgarus,  you  are  happy,  forasmuch  as  you  have  believed 
on  me,  whom  you  have  not.  seen.  For  it  is  written  concerning 
me,  that  those  who  have  seen  me  should  not  beheveon  me, 
that  they  who  have  not  seen  might  believe  and  live.  As  to 
that  part  of  your  letter,  which  relates  to  my  giving  you  a 
visit  I  must  inform  you,  that  1  must  fulfil  all  the  ends  of 
my  mission  in  this  country,  and  after  that  be  received  un 


405 

again  to  him  who  sent  rao.  But  after  ray  ascension  I  will 
send  one  of  my  disciples,  who  will  cure  your  disease,  and 
^'ive  life  to  you,  and  all  that  are  with  you. 


NOTE   G. 
PAUL'S  EPISTLE    TO  THE  LAODICEANS. 

The  Epistle  of  St.  Paxil  to  the  Laodiceans. 

1.  Paul  an  Apostle,  not  of  men,  neiti)er  by  man,  but  by 
Jesus  Christ,  to  the  brethren  wliich  are  at  Laodicea. 

2.  Grace  be  to  you,  and  peace  from  God  the  Father,  and 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

3.  I  thank  Christ  in  every  prayer  of  mine,  that  ye  conti- 
nue and  persevere  in  good  worka,  looking  for  that  which  is 
promised  in  the  day  of  judgment. 

4.  Let  not  the  vain  speeches  of  any  trouble  you,  who 
pervert  the  truth,  that  they  may  draw  you  aside  from  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel  which  I  have  preached. 

5.  And  now  may  God  grant,  that  my  converts  may  at- 
tain to  a  perfect  knowledge  of  ihe  truth  of  the  Gospel,  be 
beneficent,  and  doing  good  works  which  accompany  salva- 
tion. 

6.  And  now  my  bonus,  which  I  suffer  in  Christ,  arc  ma- 
nifest, in  which  I  rejoice  and  am  glad. 

7.  For  I  know  that  this  shall  turn  to  my  salvation  for 
ever,  which  shall  be  through  your  prayer,  and  the  supply 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

0.  Whether  I  live  or  die;  (for)  to  me  to  live  shall  be  a 
life  to  Christ,  to  die  will  be  joy. 

9.  And  our  Lord  will  grant  us  his  mercy,  that  ye  may 
have  the  same  love,  and  be  likemmded. 


406 


10.  Wherefore,  my  beloved,  as  ye  have  heard  of  the 
coining  of  the  Lord,  so  think  and  act  in  fear,  and  it  shall 
^ato  you  life  eternal ; 

1.1.  For  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  ; 

12.  And  do  all  things  without  sin. 

13.  And  what  is  best,  my  beloved,  rejoice  in  the  Lord 
.lesus  Christ,  and  avoid  all  filthy  lucre. 

14.  Let  all  your  requests  be  made  known  to  God,  and  be 
steady  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ. 

15.  And  wliatsoever  things  are  sound,  and  true,  and  of 
good  report,  and  chaste,  and  just,  and  lovely,  these  things 
do. 

16.  Those  things  which  ye  have  heard,  and  received, 
tliink  on  these  things,  and  peace  shall  be  with  you. 

17.  And  all  the  saints  salute  you. 

18.  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  your 
spirit.     Amen. 

19.  Cause  this  Epistle  to  be  read  to  the  Colossians,  and 
the  Epistle  of  the  Colossians  to  be  read  among  you. 


407 


NOTE    H. 

S  r.  PAUL'S   EPISTLES  TO    SENECA,  WITH  SENECA'*^ 
TO  PAUL. 

^nnttus  Seneca  to  Paul,  Greeting. 

Epistle   I. 

I  fcupposc,  Paul,  that  you  have  been  informed  of  that  con- 
versation, which  passed  yesterday  between  me  and  my  Luci- 
lius,  concerning  hypocrisy  and  other  subjects;  for  there  were 
some  of  your  Disciples  in  company  with  us ;  for  when  wc 
were  retired  into  the  Sallustian  gardens,  through  which 
they  were  also  passing,  and  would  have  gone  another  way, 
by  our  perstiasion  they  joined  company  with  us.  I  desire 
you  to  believe,  that  we  much  wish  for  your  conversation; 
we  were  much  delighted  with  your  book  of  many  Epistles* 
which  you  have  wrote  to  some  cities  and  chief  towns  of  pro- 
vinces, and  which  contains  wonderful  instructions  for  moral 
conduct ;  such  sentiments,  as  I  suppose  you  were  not  the 
author  of,  but  only  the  instrument  of  conveying,  though 
sometimes  both  the  author  and  the  instrument;  for  such  is 
the  sublimeness  of  those  doctrines,  and  their  grandeur,  that 
I  suppose  the  age  of  a  man  is  scaroe  sufBcient  to  be  in- 
structed and  perfected  in  the  knowieugo  of  them.  I  wish 
your  welfare,  my  brother.    Farewell. 


Paul  to  Seneca,  Greeting. 

EflSTLE     I. 

1  received  your  letter  yesterday  with  pleasure;  to  which 
I  could  immediately  have  wrote  an  answer,  had  the  young 
man  been  at  home,  whom  I  intended  to  have  sent  to  you : 
for  you  know  when,  and  by  whom,  at  what  seasons,  and  to 
whom  I  must  deliver  every  thing  which  I  send.     I  deairc 


408 

therefore  you  would  not  charge  me  with  negligence,  if  I 
Wait  for  a  proper  persoH.  I  reckon  myself  very  happy  in 
having  the  judgment  of  so  valuable  a  person,  that  you  are 
delighted  with  my  Epistles :  for  you  would  not  be  esteem- 
ed a  censor,  a  philosopher,  or  be  the  tutor  of  so  great  a 
prince,  and  a  master  of  every  thing,  if  you  were  not  sin- 
cere.    I  wish  you  lasting  prosperity. 


Amixus  Seneca  to  Paul,  Greeting. 
Epistle  II. 

I  have  completed  some  volumes,  and  divided  them  in- 
to their  proper  parts.  I  am  determined  to  read  them  t© 
Ctesar,  and  if  any  favourable  opportunity  happens,  you  also 
shall  be  present,  when  they  are  read ;  but  if  that  cannot 
be,  I  will  appoint  and  give  you  notice  of  a  day,  when  wc 
will  together  read  over  the  performance.  I  had  determin- 
ed, if  I  could  with  safety,  first  to  have  your  opinion  of  it 
before  1  published  it  to  Cassar,  that  you  might  be  convin- 
ced of  my  affection  to  you.     Farewell  dearest  Paul. 

Paul  to  Seneca,  Greeting, 

Epistle  II. 

As  often  as  I  read  your  letters,  I  imagine  you  present 
with  me;  nor  indeed  do  I  think  any  other  than  that  you 
are  always  with  us.  As  soon  therefore  as  you  begin  to 
come,  we  shall  presently  see  each  other.  I  wish  you  all 
prosperity. 


40<> 


.innsnis  Seneca  to  Pan!,  Greeting. 
Epistle  III. 
We  are  very  much  concerned  at  your  too  long  absence 
from  us.  What  is  it,  or  what  affairs  are  they,  which  ob- 
struct your  coming  ?  If  you  fear  the  anger  of  Ctesar,  be- 
cause you  have  abandoned  your  former  religion,  and  made 
proselytes  also  of  others,  you  liavc  this  to  plead,  that  your 
acting  thus  proceeded  not  from  incontilancy,  but  judg- 
ment.    Farewell. 


Paul  to  Seneca  and  ImciUus,  Greeting. 
Epistue    III. 
Concermng  those  thinij.s,  about  which    ye  wrote  to  mc, 
it  is  not  proper  for  me  to  mention  any  thing  in    writing  with 
pen  and  ink  :  the  one  of  which  leaves  marks,  and  tlie  other 
evidently  declares  tilings.     Especially  since  I  know  that 
there  are  near  you,  as  weii  as   me,  those   who  will  under- 
stand my  moaning.     Deference  is  to  bt^  paid  to  all    men 
and  so  much  the  more,  as  they  are  more  likely  'o  take  oc- 
casions of  quarrelling.     And  if  we  show  a  submissive  tem- 
per, we  shall  overcome   effectually  in    all  |)oint8,  if  so   be 
they  are  such,  who  are  capable  of  seeing  and   ackuowlcdg. 
ing  themselves  to  have  been  in  the  wrong.     Farewell. 


Jlnnseus  Seneca  to  Paul,   Greeting, 
Epistle    IV. 
I  profess  myself  extremely  pleased  with  the  reading  your 
letters  to  the  Giilatians,  Corinthians,  and  people  ofAchaia. 
For  the  Holy  Glio>tiias  in  them  by  you  delivered  those  sen- 
timents which  are  very  lofty,  sulilime,  deserving  of  all  rei- 

MM  2 


410 

pect,  and  beyond  }'Our  own  invention.  I  could  wish  there- 
fore, that  when  you  are  writing-  things  so  extraordinary 
there  might  not  be  wanting  an  elegancy  of  speech  agreea" 
bleto  their  majesty.  And  I  must  own,  my  brother,  that  I 
may  not  at  once  dishonestly  conceal  any  thing  from  you, 
and  be  unfaithful  to  my  own  conscience,  that  tiie  Emperor 
is  extremely  pleased  with  the  sentiments  of  your  Epistles ; 
for  when  he  heard  the  beginning  of  them  read,  he  declar- 
ed, "  that  he  was  surprised  to  find  such  notions  in  a  per- 
son, who  had  not  had  a  regular  education."  To  which  I  re- 
plied, "that  the  Gods  sometimes  made  use  of  mean  (inno- 
cent) persons  to  speak  by,  and  js^ave  him  an  instance  of  this 
in  a  mean  countryman,  named  Vatienus  who,  when  he  was 
in  the  country  of  Reate,  had  two  men  to  appear  to  him, 
called  Castor  and  Pollux,  and  received  a  revelation  from 
the  Goda.     Farewell. 


Paul  to  Seneca,  Greeting: 

Epistle    IV. 

Although  I  know  the  Emperor  is  both  an  admirer  and  fa- 
vourer of  our  (religion,)  yet  give  me  leave  to  advise  you 
against  your  suffering  any  injury  [by  showing  favour  to  us.] 
I  think  indeed  you  ventured  upon  a  very  dangerous  at- 
tempt, when  yoii  would  declare  [to  the  Emperor]  that  which 
is  so  very  contrary  to  liis  religion,  and  way  of  worship  ; 
seeing  he  is  a  worshipper  of  the  Heathen  gods.  I  know 
not  what  you.  particularly  had  in  view,  when  you  told  him 
of  this;  but  I  suppose  you  did  it  out  of  a  too  great  respect 
for  me.  But  I  desire  that  for  the  future  you  would  not  d» 
so ;  for  you  had  need  be  careful,  lest  by  showing  your  af- 
fection to  me,  you  should  offend  your  master  :  his  anger 
indeed  will  do  us  no  harm,  if  he  continue  a  heathen  ;  nor 
v^'ill  his  not  being  angry  be  of  any  service  to  us :  and  if  the 


411 

Empress  act  wortliy  of  her  cliaractcr,  she  wtU'riot  be  angry ; 
but  if  she  act  as  a  woman,  she  will  be  affronted.  Farewell. 


Annxus  Seneca  to  Paul,  Greeting. 
Epistle  V. 
I  know  that  my  letter,  wherein  I  acquainted  you,  that  I 
had  read  to  the  Emperor  your  Epistles,  does  not  so  much 
affect  you  as  the  nature  of  the  things  [contained  in  them,] 
which  do  so  powerfully  divert  men's  minds  from  their  former 
manners  and  practices,  that  I  have  always  been  surprised, 
and  have  been  fully  convinced  of  it  by  many  arguments 
heretofore  :  let  us  therefore  begin  afresh  ;  and  if  any  thing 
heretofore  has  been  imprudently  acted,  do  you  forgive.  I 
have  sent  you  a  book  de  copia  verborum.  Farewell,  dear- 
est Paul. 


I*aiil  to  Seneca,  Greeting. 
Epistle  V. 
As  oflen  as  I  write  to  you,  and  place  my  name  before  3'ours, 
I  do  a  thingboth  disagreeable  to  myself,  and  contrary  to  our 
religion :  For  I  ought,  as  I  have  oflen  declared,  to  become 
all  things  to  all  men,  and  to  have  that  regard  to  your  quali- 
ty which  the  Roman  Law  has  honoured  all  .ecnalnrs  with  ; 
viz.  to  put  my  name  last  in  the  [niscription  of  the]  Epistle, 
that  I  may  not  at  length  with  uneasiness  and  shame  be 
•bliged  to  do  that  which  it  was  always  my  inclination  to  do. 
Farewell,  most  respected  master.  Dated  the  tillh  of  the 
calends  of  July,  in  the  fourth  Consulship  of  Nero  and 
McssaU. 


412 


Annssits  Seneca  to  Paul,  Greeting. 
Epistle  VI. 
All  happiness  to  you,  my  dearest  Paul.  If  a  person  so 
great,  and  every  way  agreeable  as  you  are,  become  not 
only  a  common,  but  most  intimate  friend  to  me,  how  hap- 
py will  be  the  case  of  Seneca  !  You,  therefore,  who  are  so 
eminent,  and  so  far  exalted  above  all,  even  the  greatest,  do 
not  think  yourself  unfit  to  be  first  named  in  the  mscription 
of  an  Epistle ;  lest  I  should  suspect  you  intend  not  so  much 
to  try  me,  as  to  banter  me ;  for  you  know  yourself  to  be  a 
Roman  citizen.  And  I  could  wish  to  be  in  that  circum- 
stance or  station  which  you  are,  and  that  you  were  in  the 
same  that  I  am.  Farewell,  dearest  Paul.  Dated  the  tenth 
of  the  calends  of  April,  in  the  Consulship  of  Aprianus  and 
Capito. 


Annaeus  Seneca  to  Paul,  Greeting. 
Epistlk  Vil. 
All  happiness  to  you  my  dearest  Paul.  Do  you  not  sup- 
pose I  am  extremely  concerned  and  grieved,  that  your  in- 
nocence should  bring  you  into  sufferings?  And  that  all 
the  people  should  suppose  you  [Christians]  so  criminal,  and 
imagine  all  the  misfortunes  that  happen  to  the  city,  to  be 
caused  by  you  ?  But  let  us  bear  the  charge  with  a  patient 
temper,  appealing  (for  our  innocence)  to  the  court  (above,) 
which  is  the  only  one  our  hard  fortune  will  allow  us  to  ap- 
peal to,  till  at  length  our  misfortunes  shall  end  in  unaltera- 
ble happiness.  Former  ages  have  produced  (tyrants)  Al- 
exander the  son  of  Philip,  and  Dionysius  ;  ours  also  has 
produced  Caius  Caesar;  whose  inclinations  were  their  only 
laws.  As  to  the  frequent  burnings  of  the  city  of  Rome,  the 
cause  is  manifest;  and  if  a  person  in  my  mean  circumstan- 
ces might  be  allowed  to  speak,  and  one  might  declare  these 


413 

dark  thinpfs  without  danger,  every  one  should  see  the  whole 
of  the  matter.  The  Clinstians  and  Jews  are  indeed  com- 
monly punished  for  the  crune  of  burning;  the  city;  but  that 
impious  miscreant,  vvhodehghts  m  murders  and  butcheries, 
and  disguises  his  villanies  with  lies,  is  appointed  to,  or  re- 
served till,  his  proper  time  ;  and  as  the  life  of  every  excel- 
lent person  is  now  sacrificed  instead  of  that  one  person  (who 
is  the  author  of  the  miscliief,)  so  this  one  shall  be  sacrificed 
for  many,  and  he  shall  bo  devoted  to  be  burnt  with  fire  in- 
stead  of  all.  One  hundred  and  thirty  two  houses,  and  four 
whole  squares  [or  islands]  were  burnt  down  in  six  davs; 
the  seventh  put  an  end  to  the  burning.  I  wish  you  all  hap- 
piness. Dated  the  fifth  of  the  calends  of  April,  in  the  con- 
sulship of  Frigius  and  Bassus. 


^nnaus  Serntca  to  Paul,  Greeting. 

El'ISTLE      VIII. 

All  happiness  to  you,  my  dearest  Paul.  You  have 
wrote  many  volumes  in  an  allegorical  and  mystical  style, 
fcnd  therefore  such  might v  matters  and  business  being  com- 
mitted to  you,  require  not  to  be  set  off  with  any  rhetorical 
flourishes  of  speech,  bu'  only  with  some  proper  elegance. 
I  remember  you  ofttn  say,  that  "  many  by  affecting  such  a 
style  do  injury  to  their  subjects,  and  lose  the  force  of  the 
matters  they  treat  of."  But  in  this  I  desire  you  to  regard 
me,  viz.  to  have  respect  to  true  Latin,  and  to  choose  just 
words,  that  so  you  may  the  better  manage  the  noble  trust 
which  is  reposed  in  you.  Farewell.  Dated  5th  of  the 
nones  of  July,  Leo  and  Savinus  consuls. 


414 


J^aul  to  Seneca,  Greeting. 
Epistle  VI. 
Your  serious  consideration  is  requited  with  those  discov- 
eries, which  tlie  Divine  Being  has  granted  but  to  few.  1 
am  thereby  assured  that  I  sow  the  most  strong  seed  in  a  fer- 
tile soil,  not  any  thing  material,  which  is  subject  to  corrup- 
tion, but  the  durable  word  of  God,  which  shall  increase  and 
bring  forth  fruit  to  eternity.  That  which  by  your  wisdom 
you  have  attained  to,  shall  abide  without  decay  forever. 
Believe  that  you  ought  to  avoid  the  superstitions  of  Jews 
and  Gentiles.  The  things  which  you  have  in  some  mea- 
sure arrived  to,  prudently  insinuate  [make  known]  to  the 
Emperor,  his  family,  and  to  faithful  friends;  and  though 
your  sentiments  will  seem  disagreeable,  and  not  be  compre- 
hended by  them,  seeing  most  of  them  will  not  regard  your 
discourses,  yet  the  Word  of  God  once  infused  into  them, 
W'ill  at  length  make  them  become  new  men,  aspiring  to- 
wards God.  Farewell  Seneca,  who  art  most  dear  to  us. 
Dated  on  the  calends  of  August,  in  the  consulship  of  Leo 
and  Savinus. 


NOTE    I. 

MIRACLES  ASCRIBED  TO  CHRIS  T  IN  THE  BOOK,  EN- 
TITLED, "THE  GOSPEL  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  IN- 
FANCY." 

Christ  is  represented  as  speaking  in  the  cradle  and  telling 
his  mother,  that  he  was  her  son. 

The  swaddling  clothes  in  which  he  was  wrapped,  when 
thrown  into  the  fire,  would  not  burn.  When  his  parents 
entered  Egypt  in  liieir  flight  from  the  cruelty  of  Herod,  the 
girth  of  the  saddle  on  which  Mary  rode,  broke ;    and  the 


415 


1 
•^ 


wreat  idol  of  Egypt  fell  down  at  the  approach  of  the  infant 
Jesus. 

By  means  of  the  babe's  swaddling  clothes,  several  devila 
were  cast  out  of  a  boy's  mouth,  in  the  ahape  of  crows  and 
serpents. 

A  company  of  robbers,  at  the  approach  of  Jesus,  were 
frightened  by  being  made  to  hear  a  sound,  as  of  an  army, 
&,c. 

It  is  related,  that  a  girl  was  cured  of  a  leprosy,  by  means 
of  water  in  wliich  Christ's  body  had  been  wasiied. 

That  a  young  man,  wlio  by  witchcraft  Jiad  been  turned 
into  a  mule,  was,  upon  Christ's  mounting  him,  turned  again 
into  a  man. 

Many  otiier  cures  and  miracles  are  wrought  by  means  of 
Christ's  swaddling  clothes,  and  the  water  in  which  his  body 
had  been  washed. 

A  girl  possessed  of  the  devil,  who  appeared  to  her  in  the 
shape  of  a  dragon,  and  so  sucked  her  blood,  that  she  looked 
like  a  dead  carcass,  was  relieved  by  means  of  the  swaddhng 
clothes  of  the  infant  Jesus,  from  which  issued  flames  and 
coals  of  fire,  wiiich  fell  upon  the  dragon,  so  that  he  was 
frightened  and  left  the  girl. 

Another  woman  had  a  son  named  Judas,  who  was  inclin- 
ed to  bite  all  that  were  present,  and  if  he  found  no  one  else 
near  him,  he  woidd  bite  his  own  hands  and  other  parts. 
This  child  they  brought  to  Jesus,  and  Satan  coming  upon 
hira  as  usual,  he  went  about  to  bite  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  be- 
cause he  could  not  do  it,  he  struck  hiui  on  his  right  side,  so 
that  he  cried  out,  and  in  the  same  moment,  Satan  went  out 
of  the  boy,  and  ran  away  like  a  mad  dog.  Tiiis  child  was 
no  other  than  Judas  Iscariot,  who  atlerwurds  betrayed  Jesus 
to  the  Jews. 

When  Jesus  was  about  seven  years  of  age  he  was  at  play 
with  several  other  boys  of  the  same  age,  who  were  occupied 
in  moulding  clay  into  the  shapes  of  oxen,  asses,  birds,  &c. 


416 

Then  the  Lord  Jesus  said  to  the  boys,  '  I  will  command 
these  figures  which  I  have  made  to  walk;'  and  immediate- 
ly they  moved,  and  when  he  commanded  them  to  return, 
they  returned.  He  also  made  the  figures  of  birds  and  spar- 
rows which,  when  he  commanded,  did  fly — and  if  he  gave 
them  meat  and  drmk,  they  did  eat  and  drink.  When  the 
boys  related  these  things  to  their  parents,  they  warned 
them  to  shun  ins  company,  for  he  was  a  sorcerer. 

It  is  moreover  related,  iJiat  when  Joseph,  who  was  not 
very  skilful  at  the  carpenter's  trade,  had  made  any  article 
which  was  too  long  or  snort,  too  wide  or  narrow,  the  Lord 
Jesus  by  stretching  his  hand  towards  it,  would  reduce  it  at 
once  to  the  proper  dimensions.  Joseph  being  employed  by 
the  King  of  Jerusalem  to  make  him  a  throne,  was  two  years 
employed  in  the  work,  but  when  it  came  to  be  set  up,  want- 
ed two  spans  of  the  proper  measure,  upon  which  Joseph 
Avas greatly  troubled,.and  went  to  bed  without  his  supper, 
but  Jesus  told  hiin  not  to  be  cast  down,  and  seizing  the 
throne  on  one  side,  and  Joseph  on  the  other,  they  drew  it 
immediately  into  its  proper  dimensions. 

On  one  occasion  he  is  said  to  have  turned  certain  boys 
who  hid  themselves  from  him,  into  kids,  and  then  at  the 
intercession  of  their  mothers,  restored  them  again  to  their 
proper  shape. 

A  boy  having  put  his  hand  into  a  partridge's  nest  to  take 
out  the  eggs,  was  bit  by  a  serpent,  whereupon  they  brought 
him  to  Jesus,  who  directed  them  to  carry  him  before  him, 
to  the  place  where  he  had  received  the  injury.  On  coming 
to  the  spot,  Jesus  called  for  the  serpent,  and  it  presently 
came  forth;  and  he  said  '-go  and  suck  out  the  poison 
which  thou  hast  infused  into  that  boy ;"  so  the  serpent 
crept  to  the  boy,  an  J  took  away  all  its  poison  again.  He 
also  cures  his  brother  James,  who,  in  gathering  sticks, 
was  bitten  by  a  viper. 
Being  one  day  on  the  house  top,  playing  with  some  boys, 


417 

•ne  of  tliem  fell  down  and  was  instantly  killed.  And  the 
boys  relations  came  and  said  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  "  thou  didst 
throw  our  son  down  from  the  house  top;"  but  ho  denied  it, 
and  said  "let  us  go  and  ask  himself."  Then  the  Lord 
Jesus  goinrr  down,  stood  over  the  dead  body,  and  said 
with  a  loud  voice,  "  Zeinunus,  Zeinunus,  who  threw  thee 
down?"  Then  the  dead  boy  answered,  " Thou  didst  not 
throw  me  down,  but  such  a  one." 

Being,  on  a  certain  occasion,  sent  by  his  mother  to  the 
well  for  water,  the  pitchor  bmkp.  and  he  gathered  up  the 
water  in  his  garment,  and  brought  it  to  her. 

On  another  day,  when  he  was  occupied  with  other  boys, 
in  making  little  fisb  pools,  the  Lord  Jesus  made  twelvo 
gparrows%nd  placed  them  about  his  pool  ;  but  it  was  the 
Sabbath,  and  the  son  of  Kanani,  a  Jew,  came  by  and  saw 
them  making  these  things,  and  said  '  Do  ye  thus  make 
firrures  of  clay  on  the  Sabbath  ?"  And  he  broke  down  the 
fish  pools.  But  when  the  Lord  Jesus  clapped  his  hands 
over  the  sparrows  wiiich  he  had  made,  they  flew  away, 
chirping.  And  when  tlie  son  of  Kanani  came  to  his  fisli 
pool  to°destroy  it,  the  water  vanished  away,  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  said  to  him,  '  as  this  water  has  vanished,  so  shall  thy 
life  vanish;'  and  presently  the  boy  died. 

On  another  occasion  a  boy  ran  against  him,  and  threw 
him  down,  whereupon  the  Lord  Jesus  said,  '  as  thou  hast 
thrown  me  down,  so  slialt  thou  fall  never  to  rise,'  and  that 
moment  the  boy  fell  down  and  died. 

There  was  at  Jerusalem  a  school-master  named  Zachc- 
us,  who  said  to  Joseph  '  why  dost  thou  not  send  Jesus  to 
me,  that  he  may  learn  his  letters  ?'  And  upon  his  being  sent, 
the  master  bid  him  say  Alepfi,  and  when  he  had  pronounced 
t,  he  bid  him  say  Belli;  and  the  Lord  Jesus  said,  tell  me  first 
the  meaning  oi  Aleph,  and  when  the  teacher  threatened  to 
whip  him,  he  began  and  explained  to  him  the  meaning  of 
the  letters,  describing  them  according  to  their  forms,  tcll- 

N    N 


418 

jDg  which  had  double  figures,  and  which  were  furmshed 
with  points,  and  which  not :  on  which  the  master  said,  '  I 
beheve  this  boy  was  born  before  Noah.' 

But  after  a  while  Joseph  said  to  Mary  '  Henceforth  we 
will  not  let  him  go  out  of  the  house,  for  every  one  who  dis- 
pleases him  is  killed.' 

When  at  the  age  of  twelve  years  Jesus  was  at  Jerusa- 
lem, a  certain  Astronomer  asked  him,  whether  he  had  stu- 
died Astronomy  ?  Upon  which  he  told  him  the  number  of 
the  spheres  and  heavenly  bodies,  &c.  There  was  there 
also  a  philosopher  who  asked  the  Lord  Jesus  whether  he 
had  ever  studied  physic  ;  he  replied  and  explained  to  him 
physics  and  metaphysics;  the  powers  of  the  body;  its  anat- 
omy, &.C.  But  from  this  time  he  began  to  conceal  his  mira- 
cles, and  gave  himself  to  the  study  of  the  Law,  till  he  ar- 
rived to  the  end  of  his  thirtieth  year. 

[See  the  Gospel  of  our  Saviour's  Infancy,  complete  in  the 
Second  Volume  of  Jones  on  the  Canon,  from  which  work 
this  translation  is  taken.] 


